HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/01/2006 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning CommissionCITY OF COLLEGE STATION
P4rnnrng d Drvclvpment Services
AGENDA
Workshop Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, June O1, 2006, at 6:00 PM.
Holy Cross Lutheran Church
1200 Foxfire Drive
College Station, Texas
FILE COPY
1. Call the meeting to order.
2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items.
3. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding proposed revisions to the Parkland
Dedication Ordinance.
4. 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)
5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming
Meetings.
• June 22, 2006 ~ Joint Meeting ~ P&Z and City Council
• October 18-20, 2006 ~ APA State Conference, Corpus Christi, Texas
6. 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.
7. Adjourn
Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the College Station Planning and Zoning
Commission, College Station, Texas will be held on Thursday, June 1, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. at the Holy
Cross Lutheran Church, 1200 Foxfire Drive, 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.~ov. 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.~ov. Planning and Zoning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Cable
Access Channe119.
•
• CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning d Uevelognrnt services
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, June O1, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.
Holy Cross Lutheran Church
1200 Foxfire Drive
College Station, Texas
1. Call meeting to order.
2. Hear Citizens. At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to address
the Commission on planning and zoning issues not already scheduled on tonight's agenda.
The citizen presentations will be limited to three minutes in order to accommodate everyone
who wishes to address the Commission and to allow adequate time for completion of the
agenda items. The Commission will receive the information, ask city staff to look into the
matter, or will place the matter on a future agenda for discussion. (A recording is made of
the meeting; please give your name and address for the record.)
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, where staff has found compliance with all minimum subdivision regulations. All
items approved by Consent are approved with any and all staff recommendations. There will
not be separate discussion of these items. If any Commissioner desires to discuss an item on
• the Consent Agenda it will be moved to the Regular Agenda for further consideration.
3. Consent Agenda.
3.1. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat -Residential for Edelweiss
Gartens Phase 12 consisting of 24 lots on 8.19 acres located at Oldenburg Lane north
east of Wellborn Road and State Highway 40. Case #06-500092 (JR/JN)
3.2. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Las Palomas consisting
of 27 lots on 8.79 acres located in the general vicinity of the intersection at Cain Road
and Jones-Butler Road in the City's Extra-territorial Jurisdiction. Case #06-500037
(CH/JN)
3.3. Consideration, discussion and possible action on meeting minutes.
• November 3, 2005 ~ Regular Meeting Minutes
:• February 2, 2006 ~ Workshop Meeting Minutes
• February 2, 2006 ~ Regular Meeting Minutes
• February 16, 2006 ~ Workshop Meeting Minutes
• February 16, 2006 ~ Regular Meeting Minutes
:• May 4, 2006 ~ Workshop Meeting Minutes
:• May 4, 2006 ~ Regular Meeting Minutes
• • May 18, 2006 ~ Workshop Meeting Minutes
• May 18, 2006 ~ Regular Meeting Minutes
Regular Agenda.
4. Consideration, discussion and possible action on a request for absence from a meeting.
• Ken Reynolds ~ 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 Variance Requests to the Subdivision
Regulations, Sections 12-I.5 Half-Streets, 12-K.1 General, 12-J.2 Utility Easements, 12-R.3
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, and Section 15 Ownership, and presentation, possible action,
and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Williams Creek Phases 5, 6 and 7 consisting of 47
lots on 116.15 acres located at 9500 Rock Prairie Road at the south east corner of Greens
Prairie and Rock Prairie Road. Case #06-500089 (JR/CC)
7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Rezoning from A-O
Agricultural Open to A-P Administrative Professional for Harvey Hillsides, Block 1, Lot 31
consisting of 0.69 acres located at 3970 Harvey Road, generally located between Pamela
Lane and Marcy Lane. Case #06-500093 (TF)
8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to the Unified
Development Ordinance, Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures related to specific notice
requirements. Case #OS-500023 (TF)
9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment request for the area generally located east of and adjacent to State Highway 6,
• north of Woodcreek Subdivision, south of Emerald Parkway, and west of Foxfire
Subdivision, from Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, and Single-Family Medium Density, to
Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, Institutional, Office, and Planned Development. Case #05-
500044 (JP)
10. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion of a rezoning for 18.9 acres,
generally located to the east of and adjacent to State Highway 6, north of Woodcreek Drive,
west of Woodcreek &Foxfire subdivisions, and south of Technology Drive, from A-O
Agricultural-Open and R-1 Single-Family Residential to A-P Administrative Professional.
Case #OS-500073 (JP)
11. Adj ourn.
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 Thursday, June 1, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. at the Holy
Cross Lutheran Church, 1200 Foxfire Drive, 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.~ov. 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.~ov. Planning and
Zoning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19.
r~
PROPOSED
• PARK LAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE REVISIONS
MAY 2006
The Park Land Dedication Ordinance states that its fee structure should be revised
every three years. The last revision was undertaken in 2002. A joint
subcommittee was formed to make recommendations for new revisions. The
subcommittee was comprised of three Parks & Recreation Advisory Board members,
three Planning & Zoning Commission members, a representative of the Greenway's
Council, and a representative active in the development field.
The subcommittee recommends that three primary revisions be incorporated into
the Park Land Dedication Ordinance:
1. The basis for valuing land should be changed from a fixed amount ($20,000
in the current Ordinance) to the appraised fair market value of the land.
2. The fee for neighborhood park development should be increased to reflect
the increases in development costs that have occurred since the last revision.
• 3. The ordinance should be extended to include the cost of providing basic
community park infrastructure as well as the cost of neighborhood parks.
A copy of the proposed revised ordinance is attached with the proposed changes
clearly marked. A commentary is included as a prologue to the proposed ordinance
revisions.
•
PROLOGUE
• COMMENTARY pN THE PROPOSED REVISED PARK DEDICATION
REQUIREMENTS
The Principle Undergirding the Land Dedication Ordinance
The land dedication requirement may be viewed as a type of user fee. The intent
is that the cost of new parks should be paid for by the landowner, developer or new
homeowners who aze responsible for creating the need for new park amenities, rather
than raising taxes on existing community residents to pay for these amenities.
Neighborhood and community parks are designed to serve only those people in
the area proximate to them. Thus, park amenities of this type in newly developing parts
of the city make no positive contribution to the quality of life of existing residents,
suggesting there is no reason why they should be asked to raise their taxes to pay for
them.
The Legal Parameters which guide Park Dedication requirements.
The legal parameters were effectively codified by two decisions handed down by
the U.S. Supreme Court. The two cases are Nollan v California Coastal Commission
(1987) and Dolan v City of Tigard (1994).
• The Nollan decision confirmed the "required nexus" role which requires there be
a rational nexus (close geographical connection) between the demand stemming from a
development and park amenities developed with resources provided by the developer.
This criterion is met in College Station by the city establishing 16 park planning zones.
The proposed revised ordinance specifies "fees paid...must be used only for development
or acquisition of neighborhood and community parks located within the same Zone as the
development."
The Dolan decision governs the amount of land dedication that communities can
require developers to provide. The Supreme Court ruled there must be a "rough
proportionality" between the requirements imposed on a developer and the needs
projected to be forthcoming from the development. The most widely used and accepted
approach to meeting the "rough proportionality" criterion is to assume that new residents
will require the same level of service as existing residents in the community. This
approach has been used to calculate the dedication requirement in the proposed revised
ordinance.
Implications of not revising the Dedication requirement.
The population projections for College Station which are the basis for the revised
fee calculations used in the ordinance, aze shown in Attachment 1. One consequence of
• the ongoing rapid growth of College Station is the need for future major investment both
in new parks land and in new amenities on those lands. The magnitude of this investment
• is projected in Attachment 2. It shows that based on the city's best estimate of population
growth in the next 10 years, an investment for neighborhood and community parks of $26
million will be needed merely to maintain the city's current level of service. This
investment will not increase the quality of life for existing College Station residents.
Attachment 3 shows that the existing ordinance requirements are likely to raise
approximately $8 million of the $26 million, leaving a residual of approximately $18
million to be funded by existing taxpayers over the next 10 years. These costs reflect
only "basic" facilities and infrastructure amenities in community parks. Residents will be
expected to pay for any active recreation amenities in these community parks, such as
athletic fields, swimming pools, tennis courts, recreation centers, etc., through bond
referenda. The proposed revised ordinance requirements have been calculated to produce
this approximately $18 million so existing taxpayers do not have to subsidize this growth
and be burdened with being taxed to meet these costs.
There appear to be three broad courses of action available to the city:
(i) Accept a lower level of investment and, thus, a reduction in the prevailing
level of neighborhood and community park amenities. This would result
in a coincident deterioration in the quality of life offered by the
community and, thus, make it more difficult to attract those high quality,
high paying businesses which would enhance the city's tax base.
• (ii) Leave the existing ordinance requirements unchanged and ask residents to
raise their taxes by approximately $18 million in the next 10 years to
retain the current level of service.
(iii) Implement the proposed revised ordinance so the current level of park
amenities can be retained without burdening existing city residents with
higher taxes.
Increases in Cost of Services
In the past two decades, many communities have undertaken fiscal impact
analyses designed to identify the costs and revenues associated with different types of
development (residential, commercial/industrial, farm, forest/open space. A recent
review of 98 studies done by over 50 different researchers in 21 different states reported
that for every $1 million received in revenues from residential developments, the median
cost to serve them was $1.16 million. The costs referred to those incurred by all local
public taxing entities (e.g. city, county and school district). Among those 98
communities, there was not a single instance where taxes from residential development
were sufficient to cover the costs of servicing those residents.
In the early 1990s, Mr. Jim Calloway, who was College Station's Planning
Director, informed the council that an analysis he had done indicated the "break-even
point" in College Station was approximately $140,000. That is, homes appraised at a
• lower amount cost more to service than they generated in taxes, while homes exceeding
that value were "profitable" to the community. Given inflation over the past 15 years,
• this break-even point will now be higher -say $250,000. ("Empty nesters" are a niche
population cohort for whom the break-even value will be substantially lower because
they have no children in public schools).
Thus, even if new development pays the capital costs associated with meeting its
need for new park amenities, it is possible that College Station taxpayers will continue to
subsidize new development.
•
•
Attachment 1
• Population Assumptions
1. The population estimates and projections used in Attachments 1 and 2 were
provided by the Development Services Department.
There are two sources available for estimating the current population:
(i) Residential Certificates of Occupancy that are issued by the city each
month. This approach estimates the city's current population at 82,337.
Development Services notes these "numbers are a pretty high estimate all
things considered."
(ii) The Census Bureau which collects building permit data. This approach
estimates the city's current population is 72,186. Development Services
believes "they underestimate the growth that's happening here.
Given these parameters, the numbers in Attachments 1 and 2 used 77,000
which is the mid-point between these high and low estimates
2. Development Services' estimate of the city's 2015 population are:
Low: 95,000
Medium: 117,000
High: 142,000
• The medium projection of 117,000 was used for the calculations in Attachments 1
and 2, suggesting that the increase in the city's population will be 40,000 (117,000 -
77,000) by 2015.
3. The existing ratio between multifamily and single family dwellings is 56:44.
Development Services anticipate that in the future development is likely to be closer to
50:50. Hence, the 50:50 ratio was used in Attachments 2 and 3.
•
Attachment 2
•
Estimate of Capital Cost requirements for the next 10 years for Neighborhood and
Community Parks to maintain the existing level of service. (Based on a projected
increase of 40,000 population by 2015).
New Neighborhood Parks:
• Current level of Service = 1 acre per 276 people
• 40,000/276 = 145 acres
• 145 acres @ $20,000 per acre
• Average park size of 8 acres means 18 new parks @ 576,000
each for improvements.
$2,900,000
$10,368,000
$13,268,000
•
New Community Parks:
• Current level of service = 1 acre per 285 people
• 40,000/285 = 140 acres
• 140 acres @ $20,000 per acre $2,800,000
• 4 new parks @ $2.5 million each for "basic infrastructure" $10,000,000
$12,800,000
Total Capital Cost for 2006-2015 period
$26,068,000
•
Attachment 3
• Revenue from Land Dedication Ordinance
(Assume 40,000 additional population are divided equally among single family and
multi-family dwelling units)
Existing Ordinance Requirements:
Single Family: 20,000/2.80 = 7,142 Dwelling Units
7,142 DU x $556 = $3,971,000
Multi family: 20,000/2.25 = 8,890 Dwelling Units
8,890 DU x $452 = $4,018,000
Total Revenue $7,989,000
Proposed New Ordinance Requirements
Single Family: 7,142 DUs x $1,782 (859 + 923)
Multi Family: 8,890 DUs x $1,448 (698 + 750)
Total Revenue
•
$12,727,000
$12,878,000
$25,605,000
If the proposed new ordinance requirements are not implemented and the existing ordinance
requirements are retained, then College Station residents will be taxed an additional
$17,616,000 in the next 10 years in order to maintain the current level of park service.
•
•
•
C]
.fir
~ ~ ~`
~
w C
a
' ' O O O
O ~ ~ 'v
ii ~ v
~i p ~
p.,
~
.L
.c
w ~
w ~
w
~
~ ~ ~ a a.
A ~ ~
O ~
O
`^
O U
~ U~ U~ .,. ~ N O
'ZS ~
v, .~
~
~
er
~
~ N
~ ~ `~'
~ ~ a ? N
a ' o eo 0
': ~ `r
0
=~ o c~
b a~i N
3 'cs
~
O a~
O ~ p
,
i., {
~,
1. U ~ ~
C' "" c~ ~ v~ ~
b L"+ v~
a 0
0
~ •~ ~ ~ ~
0. ~ o
~ ~ ~ E
yr 'Cy
v op ~ ~
c o
y
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ b O Q O ~
U ~ M
0 '~ ~ "
U ~ ~
.
~'
~ ~
H C ~
A. Q N
Z E-~ E-~ y Q. U =s
O
Z a. a ~
y °
O o ~
~ ~
ti ~ ~
O w
~ ~ ~ a h ~
~ ~
~ a ~
, ~ 3
a.
a
~ ~ ~ ~
~ : -'
& ~ a~
~ ~
•Q ~
~ ~
+., ~
V~ V
~ V
~C U
Q V
~ ~
U U
Q U
Q
~
.~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ y p ~ 'Ci ~ ~ '~
~I
O ~
~
U ~
~ ~ O ~
•~
~
~ ~
a
, ~
~
C/1 ~
~ cy o
U U 0. ~
.U o> a ~
U ~ 'L o
U U
~ p ,Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~+ ~ ~
O r
+
`~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ o ~
~
N
'~ ~ ~o~
~q ~ ~
~ ~ ~°
_~" q
~a
p'~ p '~ ~ a ~ ~ ° ~ o ~ `~
,r U ~ '~ U ~ U > U "
.~ ~i
U
1
V
o
U v
~
~
~+ ~
.. °
C~ ~
..
o ~ .
~
~
•~ ~
~
~
I ~
y
~ ti
w
a
~
~
~
~
~ .~
~
~
~~ ~ ~
~
'Zt
~ c
o
~
b
~~~ o
~ ~ ~ O
~~~.
aa .~ ~
~ ~ °' moo/ .~ '~ ~a~i ~ c ~ ~
~ ~' a .~ 'v' ~
•-,
U o w
~
~ V
a' ,~
~
~
o ~ 3
' ~ ~ .c ~
~ ~
~ a
~
~
A ~ •b •~
~ >
~ a? c CS ~o N
~ ~
~ .
~
~
~ c o ,
~ o
'° a ~
Q
~ a~i
p ~ ae c
`' ~
~,4, 3v
i E-+UU ~ v~..•.. ~ C7~ NC7 as
¢ ~ ~
~ N M d' ~ [~
cD
0
.`
a
4
N
J
'O
m
v
a
7
v
0
a>
rn
co
a
•
•
•
~.
a ~''
V N N ~ O ~ N
U ~ ~ ~
~ ~ '~~'
~ ~ o
• ~
~
w
~ ~ v~ to a ~
•>_ ~n
A ~
~ ~
~ a ~ OA ~ N 3
O ~ N ~ y O .'~ a~i ~ > ~ ~ O
N
~
~ Y. ~
~ o ..~ ~
~ 3 ~ a ~
° ~ ~w iN ~
'
'd ~
° o a
`~ ~
O ~ b
~
°' a~
~
.5
° a
c
~ ~
O o ~
~
° a 'd a >, ~ E •
~ Y ~
~
>, ~ ~
~' o " A
~ U • U ~ ~ O ~ ~ V v ~ U
• ~ ~
O
~ ~ C i--~
~ U ~ ~ C ~ .SNC U •~ """ ~
~ ~
p ~
~ ~ a, ~3°' v
c,.., w x ~ x
O ~ v + v x `~' c7 0 ~ ~
.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢
~ ~ ~
~
ti
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ > ~ > > ~
.~ ~ Q ~ ¢ ¢
~
. ~ O
r"'
~ .~
~
i.
~~~ ~ ~~~ c~~ ~~~ a
o ~. ~ w o ~. ~ o ~. ~ o ~.
~ ~
• I~ ~ Vi > y ~ > y U > y ~ U > ~ (d
O
A
O a ~ v
o
~ ~ v o ~ ~ ;fl o ~ ~ .fl ° ,C
~ oq w ~ ~
o~0 4-• v ~ o°io w v ~
o°q ~+• v
p~~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ _
U C ~ ~ _
U ~ ~ O _
U ~ O =
'V p C ~ ~, N ^ ~ v~ ~ ^ ~ rn N ^ ~ ~ N
~ U•"'sano U•°1 apo U•`=' Wpo U•v~i.a ts.
~ ~ '~' ~ ~ > ~ ~ O > :~' ~ O ~ ~'
=O j
ue
~ ~
~
b
0 0
v
U V O
D
~ s
..
~
~
~y 1.
'.
a+ Y '
.
. a .
• .+ 't7
~ a
~ ~ ~ 'C7 ~" ~ ~ N
p'rl !~~!
C
= ~ b
G ° s.,
O bA
~ 0
N .
>
'~ 'ti
~
o _
~ a
i
~ ~ ~ •~ N a Q
w ; ~ ;~
y
'~ .~
aA •~ °A
U•~ ~
~ a~i
~~
~ i .5 a~i
~ C a O
3 ~ •~
w°U
~ ~ '
• ° ~ g
py ~ a~ _ o o ~ ~ ~ o
v
-, >
C7O a~ ~
P4~° a~
A a~ ~
Avg ~ ~
AR; c c ,>,
wwA ~
w ~ o
aN
00 N M ~' ~ ~ ~
0
.~
a
Q
N
J
v
°;
ro
v
a
v
0
N
d
rn
m
n.
r~
•
•
b
~'" y
CL ++ ~n
O v~
O
~ ~
O
~O ~
O O O
oN o n
O '~
V
ON ~
~ ~
,-• o.
Q N
~ o
o
•--~ d
N
py
~ Li. ~ w ~ ~ O~0 N
~
4. vl _ Y
~ O ~ d N ~ .sG +O-' ~ C ~' bA .~
C j a z ~ ~ ~ p ca o. ~ w y `° 'a~~i a~i
~
b a. E A -, ., a~ .
>
~e ~, ~ ~ ~ - ~ o ~ ~ d
3 o c c. [~ a x
~
i~ w ~ H U U a~i °~'
~ ~ °' ~
O
+-' O
~
~
Q
~
~
H
x
'~
X Y ~W.r~
x
~
Q
ti
Q H ~
~ p ~' w
,~,
Ce! ~ y x
~
+ w a
~
~
~ ~ ,~ ~.
E ~.
~ ~,
~ ~.
E a
E a
s a
E
. . p ~
. ~ e~
v ~.
C
L
•^M
I
I ~}yy
~
NI
MM
MM N
C p
~ ° C v cC
~
W o~
q = a~
'
U
•~
~ p
U ~~
~ o o r.
c
'3
~
n-o
~ ^ ~,o a ~ a.
'on a
~ °
'
•on -°'
p ~ a
i ~
o
X23 0 °°b~ _~~
••
° ~ c a
1 ~
~ °
O
~ ~i c~ '-
U a i .~ o,
U ,v
~ cq o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' v ~ a~
.~ a ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ o ~
U ~ ~
~r cv o. v
•v
~ ~ ~ F" ~
N
Cq Q
.~ti .--.
~~ N 4,
O O
O ~
~ U
~ ~
O N
~' O
,, y
Q ~ • '~
a~ a
~ _ ~ o a o~ ~ o o ;r ~
x
3wa ~x a U" as a.
0o ri Q Gq ~ U U U U Q
0
.~
a
Q
N
J
v
w
f0
'~
a
0
M
a~
rn
m
a.
•
•
•
~
•=
v
c. ~ o g v
z z
~
• o N ~ '~ .~
L
V N ~ w ~~- ti
~ a ~ ~ ,
~ \ ~ y ti
A ~ ~ ~
~
'
N ~ v~
by
S
~
•
~' .~ .~
N c '
.
~ •
>
i ~
~
O a~ N O Q ^ C
~ ~
of N
~ ~ ~
_
= A A
O ~ y ~ ~ ~
• ~ MM
W
~
ry z o ~ •~
n. o ~ C
- v c
a~ o
O E ~ V v~ xx ~x
o
~ ~ ~
O a
•~ ~
U
~
~ ~ ~
a ~
'~ ~
a: ~
'~ a ~ °'
~ v' ~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~ .~'_' ~ U o
V
~ o. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'N ~ 3
.~ ~ [r v~w~UQa Qa a;
•r`
C
== N
o a ~
'wo ao
~
~ o o ~ ~
Q d ~ a~
w ``'~ . ~ w ~
N ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~
a ti
~
~ a
.
~'
~
i••r V
°~ U
a •
+~+ 5 ~ ~,
3 • a ' °~ H
b ~ b
~ ~ .r
~
~ 3
a~
v
.~
c~~ c? o o a
i
E a
•L N U U p d ~
V c~
> ~ N
p ~
~ ~ ~ ~ , •
~
" 5 ~ ~
~ ~
on ~
~ ~ a
v~ ~
~
~ ° a
c
a
• c ~ o ~ a~
~-•, o N W P4 ,
~ o
Z w ~
~ ~
•~ ,
,~ ~
~ y .
~ ~
~ ~.
A
A ~o
~ ° 0 8
C7 U c CC
° o
a
Q
N
i~
J
w
c0
a
v
0
v
d
rn
m
a
STAFF REPORT
• Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner Re ort Date: Ma 19 2006
P Y
Email: jreeves@cstx.gov Meeting Date: June 1, 2006
Project Number: 06-00500089
Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on Variance Requests to the
Subdivision Regulations Sections 12-1.5 Half-Streets, 12-K.1 General, 12-J.2
Utility Easements, 12-R.3 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, and 15 Ownership and
presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Williams
Creek Phases 5, 6 and 7 consisting of 47 lots on 116.15 acres located at 9500
Rock Prairie Road at the southeast corner of Greens Prairie and Rock Praire
Road.
Applicant: Joe & Janet Johnson, Property Owners
Staff Recommendations: If the variances are approved, Staff recommends
approval of the Preliminary Plat as submitted.
Item Summary: This item is for consideration of variance requests to the
Subdivision Regulations and for a Preliminary Plat for Williams Creek
Subdivision Phases 5, 6 and 7.
• The Preliminary Plat is being considered under the Subdivision Regulations
Section 12, regarding rural subdivisions within the City limits. The property is
zoned A-OR, accordingly. The developer is requesting a number of variances as
follows. A variance letter is attached:
• Section 12-1.5 Half Streets -The Subdivision Regulations prohibit the
platting of half streets. However, in this case the existing Rock Prairie
Road is covered by an easement and the public currently has use of the
entire roadway. This development will dedicate half of the ROW for a
Major Collector.
• 12-J.2 Utility Easements -The Subdivision Regulations require a
minimum 20-foot Public Utility Easement. The applicant is requesting to
reduce this width to 15 feet.
• 12-R.3 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan -The Subdivision Regulations
require a Sewer Master Plan for a rural residential subdivision. The
applicant is requesting a variance to this requirement.
• Section 15 Ownership -The Subdivision Regulations require that all
infrastructure be dedicated to the City. Wellborn Special Utility District
(SUD) is required by law to own their water system that serves their
customers.
The plat is proposing lots in excess of one acre with On Site Sewer Facility
(OSSF). The subdivision will have access to Greens Prairie and Rock Prairie
• Roads. The water system is required to be designed and constructed in
accordance with City Standards. A water design report is required to confirm fire
• flow capacity of the water system.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The subject property is in compliance
with the Land Use Plan. The property is bound on the north by Phases 1-4 of the
subdivision and on the west by Rock Prairie Road. The Thoroughfare Plan
designates Greens Prairie as a Major Arterial and Rock Prairie as a Major
Collector. The main entrance to existing phases (Williams Creek Drive) is from
Greens Prairie Road. One street off of Rock Prairie road has also been platted
for the existing phases. Two additional access points (residential streets) are
being proposed off of Rock Prairie with this development. To the east and to the
south, the property backs up to approximately 242 acres of flood plain.
Item Background: The subject property was annexed into the College Station
City limits in November of 2002 and Phases 1-4 of the approved Preliminary Plat
for Williams Creek Subdivision have been platted.
In March of 2004, the City Council approved a zone change from A-O
Agricultural Open to A-OR Rural Residential for the 211.14 acre-tract of the
Williams Creek Subdivision, and in July of 2005 the City Council approved a
zone change from A-O to A-OR for the additional approximate 117-acre tract of
proposed Williams Creek Estates, now called Phases 5-7. A-OR has a
minimum lot size of 1 acre.
• The original Williams Creek Master Development was approved in May of 2004,
then was revised in September of 2005 to include additional residential acreage
that was previously shown as part of a large reserve tract.
A number of variances to the Subdivision Regulations were approved with the
Preliminary Plat of Phases 1 through 4 of the Williams Creek Subdivision. Some
of these same variances are being requested with this Preliminary Plat.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Parks Board met on April
20th and recommended approval of accepting fee in lieu of the park land.
Phases 5, 6, and 7 include 47 lots, which will require $9,306 for Land in Lieu and
with the Park Development fees included, the total fee will be $26,132.
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 with Variance Request Letter
• 3. Copy of Preliminary Plat (provided in packet)
4. Variance Criteria
• INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water required for plat: Each lot is required to have public water service, as
shown on the plat. The majority of the lots in this subdivision are in the Wellborn
SUD CCN. Water service will be provided by a Wellborn Water line. Lots in the
College Station CCN will be served from this line through an existing agreement.
Fire flows are required.
Water Service: Water is to be provided to each structure, as required.
Sewer required for plat: Each lot is larger than the 1-acre minimum
requirement for on-site septic.
Sewer Service: Sewer to be provided by on-site septic.
Street(s) required for plat: All streets shown on plat are required for this
subdivision.
Streets/Access: Greens Prairie Road is a Major Arterial and Rock Prairie Road
is a Major Collector on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. Residential access is
precluded on collector streets and larger, where applicable.
Off-site Easements required for plat: None required.
• Drainage: This development shall comply with City of College Station drainage
ordinances and policies.
Flood Plain: A few of these lots have 100-year floodplain on them, but are large
enough that development of the lots should stay out of the flood plain. Any
development by individual lot owners in the floodplain will require compliance
with FEMA floodplain regulations and City of College Station drainage
ordinances and policies as noted on the plat.
Oversize request: None
Impact Fees: None
Parkland Dedication Fees: The Parks Board met on April 20th and
recommended approval of accepting fee in lieu of the park land. Phases 5, 6,
and 7 include 47 lots, which will require $9,306 for Land in Lieu and with the Park
Development fees included, the total fee will be $26,132
C7
h ~ ~~~Nr~
~' ~ ~
~~ N N
mo
~ 0~
~
~~
4
O~ , N
0 .m0) ^ N
~
J
_ N,;t.ii cS
0
~
n N'~~' ~Z
~ ~ `LS
v
o
~ ~
~ b
0
~
+
PQ~4
rv'a_
m .. ~ ~~
~e :. ~
~~^ ~ ' m t~
~ ~'
~.
~6~ Q
~~ w,
wm o ~ a ~= ~ F3
~~
o re.µ ~ ~ F1 m ..~ .~ Pi .
F~'i~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ vk.
kQ
U G p~ N ~
~~.:~ ' ~
~ ...
O ~:
L ~
rv r o ~y' ;~~ `w
0
~ ' ~ ~
~ ,~
~' ~ ~~,
a
N
~ eo
-U qqoe~
~yV
~ry•1'
~~ ~
1
J ~
Z
~a
N
o^O
V
V
N
Z
W
H
min ~ o< C~
U yJ
_ ~ ~~ ~ A W
v
mm _ ~' ~'~ !C J
S RN W
`o ~, ; ~~ ~~ `F
W
W
!-
Z
W
o g
m a
a 5 0
°`*~ W
o~
~~~~~ m ~~`` W
yVWy G ~ 0
0
m \ ~~
~~ o ~~
~~ ~
~,~
m
~n ~
t ~ ~ a
u
d~:"~ + o
~~d
9j -`~~
M0~ r, n ~
~:., ~ ~, ASS,
.~.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Plannirea d Din~elopment Strviaet
1='INAL PLAT APPLICATION
(Check one) ^ Minor ^ Amending ~ Final ^ Vacating { Replat
{Ssoo.oo> cssco.ool { o.ool {saoo.oa> {ssoa.oo)•
*Includes public hearing fee
The following items must De submitted by an established filing deadline date for P8Z Commission consideration.
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
~ Filing Fee (see above) NOTE: Multiple Sheets -$55.00 per additional sheet
NIA Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations ~ $100 (if applicable)
® Development Permit Application Fee of $200.00 (if applicable}.
® Infrastructure Inspection Fee of $600.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed)
~ Application completed in full.
NIA Copy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats {if applicable}.
Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. {A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review.)
® One (1) copy of the approved Preliminary Plat andlor one {1) Master Plan (if applicable).
~ Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station I.S.D_
~ A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
® Two {2) copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat (if applicable).
NIA Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Rec Board, please provide proof of approval.
•
Date of Preapplicatlon Conference:
NAME OF SUBDIVISION EDELWEISS GARTENS PHASE 12
SPECIFIED LOCATION QF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (t.ot ~ Bbck) Edelweiss Gartens. Phase i ~,
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION {Primary Contact for the Project):
Name Mr. Steve Arden. Edelweiss Gartens Venture
Street Address 311 Cecilia Looo City College Station
State TX Zip Code 77845 E-Mail Address
Phone Number 979-846-8788 Fax Number 979-846-0652
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name Same as above
Street Address
State Zip Code
Phone Number
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
E-Mail Address
Fax Number
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
P8Z CASE NO.: ~~ '~`~f~~_
DATE SUBMITTED: ~ Z D 1 ~~~'
k~'
City
Name McClure $ Browne Enaineerirw/Survevina Inc E-Mail mcciurebr wn .
Street Address _ 1008 Woodcreek Drive
City Coll e t State Tx _ Zip Code 77
Phone Number 979-693-3$38 Fax Number 97 9 -
•
Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the V~,~me and Page #
Acreage ~ Total Property 8.19 acres Total # Of Lots 24 R-O-W Acreage 3.17 acres
Existing Use: Aaricuitural Proposed Use: Residential Subdivision
Number of Lots By Zoning District 2d LotsJR-2 ZOnino
Average Acreage Of Each Residential tot ay Zoning District: 0.21 acreslR-2 Zonint!
•
Floodplain Acreage None
A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plai and approved Master Plan and/or Preliminary Plat (if
applicable): One additional lot has been added.
Requested Variances to Subdivision Regulations & Reason For Same: Done
Requested Oversize Participation: None
Total Linear Footage of
Proposed Public:
1862 Streets
2102 Sidewalks
943 Sanitary Sewer Lines
1~,~~ Water Lines
Channels
$11 Storm Sewers
-0- Bike Lanes !Paths
Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat:
ACREAGE:
# of acres to be dedicated + $ development fee
# of acres in floodplain
# of acres in detention
# of acres in greenways
OR
FEE iN LIEU OF LAND:
# of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 = $
{date} Approved by Parks 8 Recreation Board
NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING.
The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts slated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true,
correct and complete. Tice undersigned hereby requests approve! by the Clty of Cdfege Statlor- o! the above-identified
final plat and attests that this request does not amend any covenants or resfrictioris associated with this plaf.
e
Si ature an Title ~~T. ~~~~~
¢ z8 °4
Da
•
•
L
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Crissy Hartl, Staff Planner Report Date: May 4, 2006
Email: chard@cstx.gov Meeting Date: June 1, 2006
Project Number: 06-00500037
Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for Las Palomas consisting
of 27 lots on 8.79 acres located in the general vicinity of the intersection of Cain Road and Jones-
Butler Road in the City's Extra-territorial Jurisdiction.
Applicant: Anthony Jones, Property Owner
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the final plat.
ETJ Plats -Brazos County's comments and recommendations: None
Item Summary: This plat is in preparation for 27 residential lots intended to be developed as
duplexes in the Extra-territorial Jurisdiction.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The location of this Final Plat at the northwest corner of
Cain Road and Jones-Butler Road is in the College Station ETJ. The Land Use Plan projects
Rural Density for this area, but the City does not regulate land use in the ETJ. Jones-Butler Road
is shown as a major collector on the Thoroughfare Plan. This plat meets all Subdivision
Regulations.
This final plat is in compliance with the preliminary plat.
Item Background: The Commission approved a Preliminary Plat for this property on January 19,
2006.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: 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 Final Plat (provided in packet)
•
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
• Water required for plat: Wellborn water is allowing the extension of their water system
from the west of an 8-in main, to provide domestic and fire flow support to this
development.
Sewer required for plat: The City of College Station is allowing the extension of their
sanitary sewer system from the east of a 12-in main, to provide service to this
development.
Street(s) required for plat: This development is proposing to construct Paloma Ridge
Drive and Los Portales Drive, both residential roadways. Approval of these roads is the
purview of Brazos County.
Streets/Access: This development will take access off Jones Butler Road (Major
Collector).
Off-site Easements required for plat: An off-site easement is being required for
drainage purposes.
Drainage: Approval of the drainage for this development is the purview of Brazos
County.
Flood Plain: None
Oversize request: NA
• Impact Fees: NA
Parkland Dedication Fees: NA
•
CITY OF COLI.)rG@ $TATIOI~i
Planning d Developrnntr Srrvira
{Check oney ^ Minor ^ Amending Finai ^ Vacating ^ Replat
(S3OO.O0) ($30D,D0) (5404,00) (5400.00) (=600.00)•
"Includes public hearing fee
Is this plat In the ET.i? ~ Yes ^ No
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
P&Z CASE NO.:
DATE SUBMITTED: ~~,~ ~~
~'~~~
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION ~
The following items must ba submiKod by att established filing deadline date for PbZ Commission consideration.
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
sr~ Filing Fes (see above) NOTE: Multiple Sheets - $55.00 per additional sheet
~_ Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations _ $100 (if applicable)
.,L Development Permit Application Fee of $200.00 (if applicable).
,,,~ Infrastructure Inspection Fee of $800.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed)
-~ Application completed in full.
u~ Copy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats (if applicable).
/ Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review.}
/ One (1}copy of the approved Preliminary Plat and/or one (1) Master Plan (if applicable).
-~' Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station I.S.D.
/ A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
Two (2) copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat (if applicable).
Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provide proof of
approval (if applicable).
Date of Preappllcation Conference:
NAME OF SUBDIVISION ~C~ S A LOM Act
SPECIFIED LOCATION Os= PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (Lot & Slock)1~-1-I`{'~BUC(~ Grrcl-,G~2 LnTSI-?~,8~3
APPLICANTlPRO ECT MANAGErR'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name ~l~ti}~iUt,1y L.. • ~o~
Street Address v~2~ ,t<lI~L. ,~!/D.D~/L S . City ,~aG~4L ~
State Zip Code 77~°fS E-Mail Address o dn~ sefixc. GY.Cc~
Phone Number _ "' ~R Fax Number ~~ 5-29~~
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners muss be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple
owners):
Name ~ Pt,~~
Street Address City
State Zip Code E-Mail Addr®ss
Phone Number Fax Number
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
Name _,~,~~ _ r~.c.~w,~..S ~r.~tu~1 ~.~ C~«-~.~,.u ~
Street Address "5U~ k~~•,a t-~.rd~` City _,~~~~41~) __ ~
State~Y,~P4~ Zip Code ~~~3~ E-IVtail Address ~ ~[e,..l~~r~y-•,ww~~+~~•~_ rn~
• Phone Number i;2p r ~i~ 9+-~ Fax Number ~ZZ.-3GS~.~
8/t3/03 l ot6
r J
C7
Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? Yes No
Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume and Page #
Acreage ~ Total Property ~7 ~ AG_~S Total # of Lots ~ ~ R-O-W Acreage
Existing Use: f~CPrtDT Proposed Use: _~~~L~~-~
Number of tots By Zoning District I I I
Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning pistrict:
Floodplain Acreage E.
A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and approved Master Plan and/or Preliminary Plat (if
applicable):
~-Za~'t" ~~s ~"~f~. Stogy c~-b ~ ,~.o
Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations & Reason For Same:
Requested Oversize Participation:
Total Linear Footage of
Proposed public:
Streets
Sidewalks
~ Sanitary Sewer Lines
~~ Water Lines
Channels
Storm Sewers
Bike Lanes /Paths
Parkland Dedication due prior to filling the Final Plat:
ACREAGE:
# of acres #o be dedicated + $ development fee
# of acres in floodplain
# of acres in detention
# of acres in greenways
OR
FEE IN LIEU OF LAND:
# of Single-Family l~nrelling Units X $556 = $
{date) Approved by Parks & Recreation board
NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING.
1'he applicant has prepared this application and Certifies that fhe facts stated herein and exhibits atfached hereto are true,
correct, and complete. The undersigned hereby requests approval ay the City of College Station of the above-identified
final plat and attests [hat this request does not amend any covenants or r+sstrictions associated with this plat.
!~ D!~
Date
•
6113103
2of6
•
f'~rt~uxr~g ~ L74ra~rlsprnr~t Srr:,~ce~
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, November 3, 2005
at 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers,
College Station City Hall
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Scott Shafer,
Dennis Christiansen, Harold Strong, John Nichols and Ken F
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SEFI
PRESENT: Staff Planners Lindsay Boyer,
Planner Trey Fletcher, Director Joey Dunn, Senior
Graduate Civil Engineer Josh No Transport
Director Lance Simms, Staff Assistan dg~
Nemcik and Action Center Representati B
• 1
2.
3
meeting to
Berry.
is, Marsha Sanford,
OTHER STAFF
Eck, Crissy artl, Senior
City Engineer Alan Gibbs,
ner Ken Fogle, Assistant
~nt;~ity Attorney Roxanne
at 7:15 p.m.
3.1 entatio iscussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for the Spring
C C ons, Phase 1 consisting of 1 lot on 3.025 acres generally
locat the northwest intersection of Greens Prairie Road and the future
exte on of Lakeway Drive. Case #OS-176 (LB/AG)
3.2 Discussion and possible action on:
Minutes -October 20, 2005, Regular Meeting
Minutes -October 20, 2005, Workshop Meeting
Commissioner Davis asked that item 3.1 be moved to the regular agenda.
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve item 3.2 of the consent agenda.
Commissioner Sanford seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0).
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes November 3, 2005 Page 1 of 4
Regular Agenda.
C7
•
•
4. Consideration, discussion and possible action on requests for absence from
meetings.
No absence requests were submitted.
5. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the
Consent Agenda by Commission action.
6.
7.
3.1 Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for the Spring
Creek Commons, Phase 1 consisting of 1 lot .025 acres generally
located at the northwest intersection of Greens irie oad and the future
extension of Lakeway Drive. Case #OS-176 G)
Lindsay Boyer, Staff Planner, presented
Preliminary Plat was approved in October ~
Commissioner Davis motioned to app
Sanford seconded the motion, motion
Public hearing, presentation,
Kapchinski Hill Subdivision
located at the southwest corner
162 (LB/AG)
Molly H
approval.
stated that the
action on a Replat for the
1.3 acres generally
eman Drive. Case #OS-
he R~lat and recommended approval.
with the approved Preliminary Plat and
dlU approve the Replat.
motion passed (7-0).
Commissioner
ltatio~'discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for the
bnsisting of 13.79 acres generally located west of Longmire
fie Cypress Meadows Subdivision, from A-O Agricultural
amily Residential. Case #05-175 (MH/CC)
Staff Planner, presented the Rezoning and recommended
Commissioner Christiansen motioned for approval of the Rezoning as
submitted. Commissioner Nichols seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0).
8. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for a portion of a tract
of land affecting 4.435 acres generally located at 450 Earl Rudder Freeway South
approximately 1500 north of the SH 6/LJniversity Drive intersection along the
southbound frontage road from R-1, Single-family Residential to C-1, General
Commercial. Case #OS-160 (TF)
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes November 3, 2005
Page 2 of 4
Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner, presented the Rezoning and stated that with the
amended Land Use Plan approved by the City Council the request is in
• compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and he recommended approval.
Commissioners called on Veronica Morgan to speak on the item and to give
background information. Ms. Morgan also spoke in favor of the item.
•
9.
10.
Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, College Station, Texas. Mr. Ellison spoke in
favor of the Rezoning.
Commissioner Davis motioned to remove this item from the table.
Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, moYassed (7-0).
Commissioner Christiansen motioned
Commissioner Sanford seconded the
Commissioners Nichols, Davis, Christians
were in favor; Chairman Shafer was in
Public hearing, presentation, discus
amendment to the City of College
Thoroughfare Plan. Case #OS-180 (KF)
Ken Fogle, Transportation
Comprehensive Plan for the T:
No one spoke at
Commissi ,
of the amen
seconded the
to
the rezoning.
passed (6-1).
ds and Sanford
action
ve
iaer an
for the
amendment to the
mend approval to the City Council
give Plan. Commissioner Davis
discussion, and possible action to consider an
age Station's Comprehensive Plan for the Bikeway
ase #OS-181 (KF)
~ortation Planner, presented the amendment to the
for the Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan.
•
Nancy BerryJl02 Lampwick Circle, College Station, Texas, spoke in favor of the
amendment and stated that she is on a committee that has received a Safe Routes
to School grant and that should help with the project and concerns addressed by
Commissioners regarding safety.
Sherry Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, College Station, Texas; Veronica Morgan,
511 University Drive, College Station, Texas. Ms. Ellison and Ms. Morgan spoke
in favor of the amendment.
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes November 3, 2005 Page 3 of 4
Commissioner Christiansen motioned to remove the designation of bike
• routes from Wellborn Road and Texas Avenue from the amendment and
approve the rest as presented. Commissioner Sanford seconded the motion,
motion passed (5-2). Commissioners Shafer, Nichols, Reynolds, Sanford and
Christiansen were in favor of the motion; Commissioners Strong and Davis
opposed the motion.
11. Adjourn.
Commissioner Nichols motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Sanford
seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). ~
•
Approved:
Scott Shater, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Lisa Lindgren,
Planning and I
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes November 3, 2005 Page 4 of 4
•
•
..,~
~l"CY Cola Cc~l.~~r.r~ S`rA~~~t~c
!'Grrrr~zg c~' 1'7~rur~lopx~rerrer 5~trrrict~
MINUTES
Workshop Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 5:30 p.m.
Administrative Conference Room
College Station City Hall
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Scott Sh
Davis, John Nichols, Ken Reynolds, Marsha Sanford, and
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICI~
PRESENT: Staff Planners Lindsa Boyer, Crissy
Planners Jennifer Prochazka and Tree
Senior Assistant City Engineer Alan
Carol Cotter, Transportation Planner K
Lance Simms, Staff Assistants Lisa Li
Attorney Carla Robinso~~
1
2.
3.
agenda items.
Christiansen, Bill
"®THER CITY STAFF
and Jennifer Reeves, Senior
inistrator Molly Hitchcock,
eers Josh Norton and
> unn, Assistant Director
amer, and Assistant City
Agenda were discussed.
action and discussion on an item to update the Commission
within the P&Z Plan of Work. (LS)
Assistant Director, presented the updates on the Plan of Work.
4
Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of
Upcoming Meetings.
- February 9, 2006 ~ Joint Workshop with City Council
- March 3, 2006 ~ Planning and Development Services Department
Forum, Conference Center, Room 127, 11:30 a.m.
- April 22-26, 2006 ~ APA National Conference, San Antonio,
Texas
P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes February 2, 2006
Page 1 of 2
- October 18-20, 2006 ~ APA State Conference, Corpus Christi,
Texas
• Joey Dunn, Director presented the P&Z Calendar of upcoming events.
5. Presentation, possible action an discussion regarding Parking Requirements.
(KF)
Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner, presented the proposed amendment regarding
Parking Requirements.
6. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding
Molly Hitchcock, Planning Administrator,
7. Presentation, possible action and di;
advertising and updating the Unified
Molly Hitchcock, Planning Administfa
Section of the Unified Development O
the process of how staff wo ld bring
Unified Development Ordin
leg the ~
Ordinance.
Ordinance.
Ordinance.
s of scheduling,
e new date th a Signage
le presente and reviewed
different amendments of the
8. Discussion and possible action fu da iterr~ A Planning and Zoning
Member may inquire about a su : ct ice has not been given. A
• statement of sp tual infor nor the citation of existing policy may
be given. A elibe n shall be ited to a proposal to place the subject on
an agenda bsequ meeting. ~
or a short presentation from TXDOT
in t local area.
9.
motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Sanford
~ passed (7-0).
•
Ap~,.,,..,~.
Scott Shafer, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Attest:
Lisa Lindgren, Staff Assistant
Planning and Development Services
P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes February 2, 2006
Page 2 of 2
•
.,,
~1'r~t c~~ Cc~L~.rc,~ S~A~tc~c
r~tarrH.~ ~- ~~,~~~r s~~r~~
r~
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers,
College Station City Hall
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Scott Sh
Davis, John Nichols, Ken Reynolds, Marsha Sanford, and
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PRESENT: Staff Planners Lindsay F
Planners Jennifer Prochazka and Tre
Senior Assistant City Engineer Alan
Carol Cotter, Transportation Planner K
Lance Simms, Staff Assistants Lisa
Attorney Carla Robinso ction C~
1.
2.
3.
and possible action on:
Christiansen, Bill
1 'bTHER C~iTY STAFF
and Jennifer Reeves, Senior
inistrator Molly Hitchcock,
' eers Josh Norton and
o unn, Assistant Director
a Kramer, Assistant City
Bryan Cook.
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the minutes.
Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0).
•
Regular Agenda
Commissioner
4. Possible action and discussion on requests for absence from meetings.
No absence requests submitted.
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes February 2, 2006
Page 1 of 4
Minutes -January 19, 2006, Regular Meeting
5. Presentation, possible action and discussion on items removed from the Consent
• Agenda by Commission action.
No items were removed from the Consent Agenda.
6. Presentation, possible action and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Indian Lakes
Phase IX, consisting of 44 lots on 14.78 acres, generally located southeast of the
intersection of Indian Lakes Drive and Arapaho Ridge Drive. Case #OS-500216
(JP/CC)
Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the eliminary Plat and
recommended approval as submitted.
Commissioner Nichols motioned for appr o Preliminary Plat.
Commissioner Reynolds seconded the o n, m ed passed (6-1).
Commissioners Nichols, Reynolds, Dav' 'stiansen, rd and Shafer
were in favor of the motion; Commiss' er Strong opposed otign.
7. Public hearing, presentation, possible actin d ion on a Conditional Use
Permit for WPC Condos to establish amulti-f use with residential uses on the
first floor in the Wolf Pen Cre esign District 'sting of 7.61 acres located at
305 Holleman Dr E, generall on the no ~ 'de of Holleman between
George Bush Drive East and Dart o .Case # 00001 (TF/CC)
• Trey Fletcher, Planner, ted onditional Use Permit and
recommended i
Jane Kee, P up, 1 University e, College Station, Texas. Ms. Kee
spoke in favor o rmit for WPC Condos.
mmissio 'cho tinned for approval of the Conditional Use Permit
requested C os with the condition that the Planning and
' g Commis see ore detail regarding the trails to Holleman and
rec eration o verflow parking within the area to accommodate for
socia nts be a it goes in front of the Design Review Board.
Commis r D is seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0).
8. Public Hearin presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Text Amendment
to Article 7.2H of the Unified Development Ordinance, Number of Off-Street
Parking Spaces required for freestanding furniture sales and motor vehicle service
areas. Case #06-500006 (LB)
Lindsay Boyer, Staff Planner, presented the Text Amendment to Article 7.2 H of
the Unified Development Ordinance.
Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group, 511 University Drive, College Station, Texas. Ms. Ruiz
• spoke in favor of the Text Amendment.
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes February 2, 2006 Page 2 of 4
Commissioner Davis motioned for approval of the Text Amendment as
submitted by staff. Commissioner Strong seconded the motion, motion
• passed (7-0).
9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an Ordinance
Amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance consisting of items considered
to be ministerial in nature based on the Unified Development Ordinance Annual
Review. Case #OS-500023 (MH)
Molly Hitchcock, Planning Administrator, presented an Ordinance Amendment of
ministerial items of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the name Amendment as
presented by staff. Commissioner Christiansen ed the motion, motion
passed (7-0).
p g
(4) lots on 90.69 acres generally located alo a east side of Wellborn Road
between Southwest Parkway a arvey Mitche way (FM 2818). Case #05-
500242 (TF/AG) ~,.
10. Presentation, possible action, and discuss' o variance Section 8-J.2
(Block Lengths) of the Subdivision Re ations or The Woo o College
Station, and Public Hearing, present ossibl ction, and sion on a
Final Plat and Re lat for the The Woodlan C Station co stin of four
11. Presentati ssi action, and discussion on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Commissioner Davis motioned to remove the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment from the table. Commissioner Sanford seconded the motion,
motion passed (7-0).
by amendin and Use Plan for 28.01 acres of Tract 2.11 of the Robert
Stevenson S y, A-54, generally located southwest of the intersection of Decatur
Drive and Alexandria Avenue. The proposed land use plan classifications include a
change from Residential Attached to a combination of Retail Regional and Single-
Family Residential, Medium Density. Case #OS-500238 (LB)
• Lindsay Boyer, Staff Planner, presented the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for
the Land Use Plan.
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes February 2, 2006 Page 3 of 4
Chuck Ellison and Kelly Templin were called by the Commission to answer
questions in general and spoke in favor of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
r~
~.
•
•
Commissioner Sanford motioned to accept alternative #2 as the change in the
Land Use Plan as presented by staff and to recommend to City Council for
approval. Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed
(7-0).
12. Adjourn.
Commissioner Nichols motioned to adjourn.
seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0).
Approved:
Scott Shafer, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Lisa Lindgren,
Planning and I
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes February 2, 2006
Commissioner Reynolds
Page 4 of 4
MINUTES
• Workshop Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, February 16, 2006
*~ at 6:00 p.m.
Administrative Conference Room,
College Station City Hall
~~~ ~ ~~ ~~'~ I ~~~ S~'nTtt~ty 1101 Texas Avenue
~R„r~~r~t~~,~,~~,:s~~~n College Station Texas
•
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman J
Bill Davis, Ken Reynolds, and Marsha Sanford.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
PLANNING & DEVELOPME
PRESENT: Staff Planners Lindsay
Prochazka and Trey Fletcher, Senior A
Engineer Carol Cotter, Transportation
Simms, Staff Assistants Lindgren
Angela Deluca.
OTHER CITY STAFF
S nior Planners Jennifer
Gibbs, Graduate Civil
1 Assistant Director Lance
and Assistant City Attorney
to order at 6:00 p.m.
2.
approved by Staff.
amending) Duck Haven (JP/CC)
Planner, gave a short presentation regarding the Duck
3. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items.
Commissioners had general discussion regarding item 6 of the Regular Agenda.
4. Presentation, possible action and discussion on an item to update the Commission on
the status of items within the P&Z Plan of Work. (LS)
Lance Simms, Assistant Director, presented the updates on the P&Z Plan of Work.
•
P&Z Minutes Workshop Meeting, February 16, 2006 Page 1 of 3
Dennis Christiansen,
Shafer and Haro
C,
5. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of
Upcoming Meetings.
• March 2, 2006 ~ Groundbreaking Ceremony, Veterans Park,
• 5:30 p.m.
• March 3, 2006 ~ Planning and Development Services Department Forum,
Conference Center, Room 127, 11:30 a.m.
• March 23, 2006 ~ Joint Workshop with City Council
• April 5, 2006 ~ Dedication Ceremony for John Crompton Park, 5:30 p.m.
• April 22, 2006 ~ Dedication ceremony for Wolf P Creek Trail Systems
and Earth Day presentation and related events.
• Apri122-26, 2006 ~ APA National Conferen an Antonio, Texas
• October 18-20, 2006 ~ APA State Confer us Christi, Texas
Lance Simms, Assistant Director, reviewed t~
and events.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussi
Development Ordinance, Section 7.4, Signs.
Lindsay Boyer, Staff Planner, pre ~ an update
Unified Development Ordinance.
7. Presentation, possible action and c
advertising and up Unified
Lance Simms
and updating the
meetings
update tc~fhe Unified
7.4 Sign section of the
the process of scheduling,
nce. -AMENDED
process of advertising, scheduling
8. Disc on ible 'non future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning
er may in abou ject for which notice has not been given. A
a t of specifi tual i ation or the recitation of existing policy may be
given. deliberat shal be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an
agenda ubseque eeting.
Commissioner ds would like to discuss developing a policy on managing
traffic problems i ndeveloped areas and the distance for notification, requesting that
annexation alon corridors be added.
Commissioners also expressed interest in discussing what is going on in College
Station that is affecting traffic flow, open meetings training, historical districts and
receiving UDO items ahead of time so they can be reviewed thoroughly.
P&Z Minutes Workshop Meeting, February 16, 2006 Page 2 of 3
• 9. Adjourn
Commissioner Christiansen motioned to adjourn.
seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0).
Approved:
Scott Shafer, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Attest:
Lisa Lindgren, Staff Assistant
Planning and Development Services
•
•
Commissioner Davis
P&Z Minutes Workshop Meeting, February 16, 2006 Page 3 of 3
•
,.
~~°r'Y c~~ Cc~t.t.~c';~ S~~~rtc~r~
!'lrrrreira,9, ~ IJ~n~:Grp~.remt ?rruic~t
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, February 16, 2006
at 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers
College Station City Hall
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman John
Bill Davis, Ken Reynolds, and Marsha Sanford.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman S
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: ~ Ron
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
PRESENT: Staff Planners Lindsa
Prochazka and Trey Fletcher, Senior
Engineer Carol Cotter, Transportatio
Simms, Staff Assistants Lisa Lindgr
• Angela Deluca and Action Center Rep
1. Call meeting to r.
Acting Chairman
2. Hear
spoke dui
3. Consen nda
Christiansen,
and Strong.
SERVIC 'ETHER CITY STAFF
Boyer and Cri artl, Senior Planners Jennifer
'stant City Eng Alan Gibbs, Graduate Civil
r Ken Fo istant Director Lance
e an Krame Assistant City Attorney
res ~ tati~,~ ~~
~~ ,~a,~.
the meeting.
OS p.m.
3.1 Prese n ssible action, and discussion on a Final Plat for the Rosa's
Subdivis onsisting of 2 lots on 4.51 acres generally located southwest of
the inter ction of University Drive East and Tarrow Street East. Case #05-
500236 (LB)
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner
Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0).
Regular Agenda.
4. Consideration, discussion and possible action on requests for absence from meetings.
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes February 16, 2006 Page 1 of 2
•
•
• John Nichols ~ February 9, 2006 ~ Joint Workshop Meeting with City
Council
• Dennis Christiansen ~ February 9, 2006 ~ Joint Workshop Meeting
with City Council
• Scott Shafer ~ February 16, 2006 ~ Workshop & Regular Meeting
• Scott Shafer ~ February 16, 1006 ~ Workshop with City Council
• Scott Shafer ~ March 16, 1006 ~ Workshop & Regular Meeting
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the absence requests as submitted.
Commissioner Sanford seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0).
5. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items re ed from the Consent
Agenda by Commission action.
No items were removed from the consent agenda.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussio variance Section 12-K.2
(Block Lengths) of the Subdivision Re ations or Sendera ivi ion, and
presentation, possible action, and disc on a eliminary Pl Sendera
Subdivision, consisting of 23 lots on approxi res locate n FM 2154,
just south of Bentwood Estates. Case #06-5000 ).
Carol Cotter, Graduate Civil Engi ~ ented the v e quest and Preliminary
Plat and recommended approval of ~' a Plat i variance was approved.
Joe Schultz, Enginee the project, Long ,College Station, Texas. Mr.
Schultz answered stions pos by the C missioners.
Commissioner tian 1 motioned approve the variance request as
submitted. Commi s the motion, motion passed (5-0).
Co issioner mo d to approve the Preliminary Plat as submitted.
issioner Ch nsen ded the motion, motion passed (5-0).
7. Adjou
Commission Ch ' iansen motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Davis
seconded the ,motion passed (5-0).
Approved:
Scott Shafer, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Attest:
Lisa Lindgren, Staff Assistant
Planning and Development Services
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes February 16, 2006
Page 2 of 2
MINUTES
Workshop Meeting
• Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.
'°"~ Administrative Conference Room
College Station City Hall
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
C~~ ~~ CO~.I.~u~. S'r~~rOty
/'Grurr~ c3^ 1?e~xfripxrrrrat S~rrnrtt
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman John Ken Reynolds, Harold
Strong, Dennis Christiansen, Bill Davis and Marsha Sanford
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Scott
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Staff Planners Lin oyer,-Jennifer Reeves and Crissy
. 1. Call meeting to or
Acting Chai ohn Ni s called the eting to order 6:03 p.m.
2. Discussion of cons nda ' s.
missio ~ is ha eral questions on items 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Regular
ends.
3. Pr tion, possib tion nd discussion regarding an update to the Commission on
the st f items wi the P&Z Plan of Work (see attached). (LS)
Lance Si ct' irector, presented the plan of work.
4. Presentation, passible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to the Unified
Development Ordinance, Traffic Impact Analysis Requirement for Residential
Developments. (KF)
Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner, gave an overview of the amendment to the Traffic
Impact Analysis Requirement section of the Unified Development Ordinance.
5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of
• Upcoming Meetings.
P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 1 of 2
Hartl, Senior Planners Jennifer Procha and Trey Fletche for Assistant city Engineer Alan
Gibbs, Graduate Civil Engineers Josh and Carol Transportation Planner Ken
Fogle, Acting Director Lance Simms, 'stant Jessic er, and Assistant City
Attorney Carla Robinson. r
• June 2006 ~ Joint Meeting ~ P&Z and City Council
• October 18-20, 2006 ~ APA State Conference, Corpus Christi, Texas
•
r~
LJ
•
6.
7
Lance Simms, Acting Director, reviewed the upcoming calendar of events for the
Commission. He stated that the joint meeting with P&Z and City Council would be
held on June 22, 2006.
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 agend subsequent meeting.
No items were discussed.
Commissioner Christiansen motioned to
the motion, motion passed (6-0).
Scott Shafer, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes May 4, 2006
seconded
Page 2 of 2
C7
~~
C~•r~~t ~~ ~c~~.~:c=~ ST~r~~c~~a
F'larratimg ~"CJriKloprnrnr Srrurxrr
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers,
College Station City Hall
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman John
Harold Strong, Dennis Christiansen, Bill Davis and Marsha,
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Scott
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Staff Planner
Crissy Hartl, Senior Planners Jennifer Prochazka an
Engineer Alan Gibbs, Graduate Civi ngineers Josh
Transportation Planner Ken Fogle, A irector L
Kramer, Assistant City Attorney Carla and
Cook.
• 1.
2.
3.
Call meeting to
Ken Reynolds,
~er, Jennifer l~ves and
etcher, Senior Assistant city
and Carol Cotter,
ms, Staff Assistant Jessica
~r Representative Bryan
to order at 7:03 p.m.
:sent n, possible action, and discussion on a Master Plan for
rairie Center, consisting of 89.71 acres located at 1649 Greens
e Road in the general vicinity of the east corner of State Highway
and Arrington Road. Case #06-500063 (TF/CC)
3.2 Consideration, discussion and possible action on meeting minutes.
* Apri16, 2006 ~ Workshop Meeting Minutes
* April 6, 2006 ~ Regular Meeting Minutes
* April 20, 2006 ~ Workshop Meeting Minutes
* Apri120, 2006 ~ Regular Meeting Minutes
•
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the consent agenda.
Commissioner Strong seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0).
one.
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 1 of 5
Regular Agenda
•
Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent
4. Agenda by Commission action.
No items were removed from the consent agenda.
5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance from Section 8-K.1
(Lots) of the Subdivision Regulations for Lakeside Village Subdivision, and
presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat consisting of 56
lots on 13.79 acres generally located along the prop extension of Eagle
Avenue and west of Longmire Drive. Case #06-5000 F/C )
Plat.
C7
6.
Commissioner Davis motioned to
Preliminary Plat. Commissioner
passed (6-0).
Commissioner Davis
Commissioner Sanford
Public hearing, presentation, posse
of Lots 14-18 and the remainder
located at 102 Un~r~'~. Drive Ea
ed in the
a. motion
:he Preliminary
passed (6-0).
Plat.
~'bn on a Replat consisting
?rank Visoski Subdivision
(JR/CC)
Replat and recommended approval.
~tioned to approve the Replat as presented.
the motion, motion passed (6-0).
7.
ation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat
ess Park, which includes a Replat of Lot 1 Block 1 North
onsisting of 5 lots on 5.22 acres located at 2801 Earl Rudder
orth Forest Parkway. Case #06-500064 (JR/JN)
Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner, presented the Preliminary Plat and recommended
approval as submitted.
Joe Schultz, 2900 Longmire, Suite K, College Station, Texas. Mr. Schultz,
Engineer for the project, came forward to answer any questions of the
Commission. The Commissioners did not have questions at this time.
• Commissioner Sanford motioned to approve the Preliminary Plat which
included a Replat. Commissioner Strong seconded the motion, motion
passed (6-0).
variance
econded the
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 2 of 5
Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner, presented the varia~e and®
8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Replat of Lot 1,
• Block 1 Jordan Subdivision and a portion of Block 4 Harvey Hillsides to create Lot
1 R, Block 1 Jordan Subdivision, 2.78 acres located at 3910 Harvey Road. Case
#06-500067 (JP/CC)
Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the Replat.
No one spoke at the public hearing.
Commissioner Christiansen motioned to approve the Replat. Commissioner
Reynolds seconded the motion, motion passed (6-0).
9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and d' on a Conditional Use
Permit -Use & Site for a Verizon Wireless tele m 'ons tower located at
1500 Harvey Rd in the general vicinity of Pos~c all. C 06-500050 (TF)
Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner, present he Con itional Use P e stated
that it met all requirements and reco appr 1.
Shep Poland, 3500 E. Alabama Road, Wharto xas. Mr. Poland was called by
the Commission to give any a ~ ' 'onal informati arding the Conditional Use
Permit and answered some oft ions.
• Commissioner Davis motione to Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner econded t otion, on passed (6-0).
10. Public hear' esentat , possible a io and discussion on an amendment to
the Unified Dev en finance, Sec s 7.4, Signs. (LB)
Unified
the amendment for Section 7.4, Signs of
Sherik, 07 I~enek Tap Road, College Station, Texas spoke in
of the ndment to section 7.4 Signs to the Unified Development
Commissio hristiansen motioned to recommend approval to the City
Council th amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance regarding
Section 7.4, Signs. Commissioner Reynolds Seconded the motion, motion
passed (6-0).
11. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to
the Unified Development Ordinance, Sections 7.2.K, Alternative Parking Plans.
(KF)
• Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner, presented the amendment for Alternative
Parking Plans.
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 3 of 5
No one spoke at the public hearing.
• Commissioner Reynolds motioned to recommend approval to the City
Council of the item as stated. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion,
motion passed (6-0).
12. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to
the Unified Development Ordinance, Sections 7.2.J, Drive-Through Facility
Queuing Requirements. (KF)
Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner, presented the
Facility Queing Requirements.
•
13
of Drive-Through
amendment to
I~tion, motion
>cu~sion on an amendment to
Design District Dimensional
of Design District
Station, Texas. Ms. Morgan
14.
commend approval of the item to City
nded the motion, motion passed (6-0).
No one spoke at the public hearing.
Commissioner Davis motioned to
the City Council. Commissioner
passed (6-0).
Public hearing, presentation, possible
the Unified Development Ordinance
Standards, related to the requir n1
Jennifer Prochazka, Senior
Dimensional Standards.
ible action, and discussion on an amendment to
ce, Section 6.3 to address Wireless Transmission
amendment for Wireless
•
Commissioner Davis motioned to recommend approval of the item to City
Council. Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (6-
0).
15. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to
the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 6.4 Accessory Structures to address
Portable Storage Structures. (TF)
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes May 4, 2006
Page 4 of 5
No one spoke at the public hearing.
Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner, presented the amendment Accessory Structures to
address Portable Storage Structures.
. No one spoke at the public hearing.
Commissioner Reynolds motioned to recommend approval of the
amendment to City Council. Commissioner Sanford seconded the motion,
motion passed (6-0).
16. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to
the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 6.4 Accessory Structures to address
Farmers' Markets. (TF) ~~
Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner, presented the t to address Farmers'
Markets.
No one spoke at the public hearing.
Commissioner Davis motioned to co nd a oval of the a~idment to
City Council. Commissioner Strong sec ie otion, mot on passed (6-
0). _
17. Adjourn.
• Commissioner Davis motioned t dj ssioner Sanford seconded
the motion, mo ' sed (6-0).
Lisa Lindgren, Staff Assistant
Planning and Development Services
C7
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes May 4, 2006 Page 5 of 5
MINUTES
Workshop Meeting
•
~;1"I'Y C)F ~C)I.i..I;.C~~. ~"1`A°k"1C7'.t*I
1''lrirrnirt~ ~" l>rt+tlapmrt~t ~&ran~ t
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
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman John Nichols, Dennis Christiansen, Harold
Strong, and Marsha Sanford.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Scott Shafer, Bill Davis, Ken Reynolds
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Scotti.
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Staff Planners Lindsay Boyer and Crissy Hartl, Senior
Planners Jennifer Prochazka and Trey Fletcher, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Senior
Assistant City Engineer Alan Gibbs, Graduate Civil Engineers Josh Norton and Carol Cotter,
Transportation Planner Ken Fogle, Acting Director Lance Simms, Staff Assistant Lisa Lindgren,
Micro Computer Specialist Dan Merkel, Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson and Action
Center Representative Bryan Cook..
1. Call meeting to order.
Acting Chairman John Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items.
Commissioner Strong mentioned that he would like to pull item 3.1 from the Consent
Agenda during the regular meeting.
3. Discussion of minor and amending plats approved by Staff.
• OS-500237 ~ Regency South Subdivision ~ Filed April 18, 2006
• 06-500052 ~ Southern Trace ~ Filed May 4, 2006
Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, gave a quick presentation regarding the amending
plats that were approved by staff and filed.
C7
4. Presentation and discussion regarding background information and
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request for the area generall
adjacent to State Highway 6, north of Woodcreek Subdivision,
Parkway, and west of Foxfire Subdivision. (JP)
P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes May 18, 2006
the current status of
y located east of and
south of Emerald
Page 1 of 3
Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, gave a presentation regarding the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment request that would be heard at the June 1, 2006, P&Z meeting which
includes a public hearing.
•
Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner, addressed concerns regarding traffic issues for the
area for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request.
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)
Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, gave a presentation regarding the APA Conference
attended by several staff members and by Commissioner Strong.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to the Unified
Development Ordinance, Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures. (TF)
Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner, presented the amendment for Section 3.1 of the Unified
Development Ordinance.
7. Presentation and discussion regarding a recent decision by City Council concerning
action only minutes. (LS)
Lance Simms, Acting Director, briefed the Commission on the decision by City Council
for all Boards/Commissions to begin to use action only minutes.
L`
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)
Lance Simms, Acting Director, reviewed the Plan of Work.
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
Lance Simms, Acting Director, reviewed the calendar of upcoming events.
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.
Commissioner Nichols asked that an item be placed on an agenda in June in reference to
recommendations by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning
Commission Sub-Committee.
•
P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes May 18, 2006
Page 2 of 3
Commissioner Nichols suggested that he would like to see an item on an upcoming
agenda regarding the reorganization of the City of College Station and how this would
• affect the Planning and Development Services portion of what the Planning and Zoning
Committee deals with.
Commissioner Nichols also addressed the need fora "Planning 101" workshop when the
new Commissioners are appointed for the next term.
11. Adjourn.
Commissioner Christiansen motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Sanford seconded
the motion, motion passed (4-0).
Approved:
Scott Shafer, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Attest:
•
•
Lisa Lindgren, Staff Assistant
Planning and Development Services
P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes May 18, 2006
Page 3 of 3
•
CtTx ~~ CUI.1.~CyE~. S`~A~~r~~r
~77Ntfl~ ~ n['1~~N?tC~f .St9'UJfPt
MINUTES
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
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman John Nichols, Dennis Christiansen, Harold
Strong, and Marsha Sanford.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Scott Shafer, Bill Davis, Ken Reynolds
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Scotti.
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Staff Planners Lindsay Boyer and Crissy Hartl, Senior
Planners Jennifer Prochazka and Trey Fletcher, Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Senior
Assistant City Engineer Alan Gibbs, Graduate Civil Engineers Josh Norton and Carol Cotter,
Transportation Planner Ken Fogle, Acting Director Lance Simms, Staff Assistant Lisa Lindgren,
Micro Computer Specialist Dan Merkel, Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson and Action
Center Representative Bryan Cook..
•
1. Call meeting to order.
Acting Chairman John Nichols called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. Hear Citizens.
Anne Hazen, 1309 Wilshire Court, College Station, Texas. Ms. Hazen spoke to the
Commission regarding the upcoming meeting on June 1, 2006. She stated that the
citizens did obtain a super majority petition that would require 5 out of the 7
Commissioners to vote for any change to the Comprehensive Plan for the
Atkinson/Shoup item to be heard. She expressed the importance of the meeting to the
residents of that area and asked that the Commissioners make every effort possible to
attend the meeting so it can be discussed with all the members of the Commission and the
decision be made by all of the members of the Commission. She also stated that if all
seven Commissioners could not attend, then the meeting should not be heard and should
be moved to another time.
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)
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes May 18, 2006 Page 1 of 5
C,
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)
Commissioner Strong asked that item 3.1 be moved to the regular agenda.
Commissioner Christiansen motioned to approve item 3.2 of the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Sanford seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0).
Regular Agenda.
4. Consideration, discussion and possible action on a request for an absence from a meeting.
• Bill Davis ~ May 18, 2006, Workshop & Regular Meeting
Commissioner Sanford motioned to approve the absence request. Commissioner
Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0).
•
5. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent
Agenda by Commission action.
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)
Crissy Hartl, Staff Planner, presented the Preliminary Plat and stated that it was in
compliance with all the Subdivision Regulations.
Although this item was not scheduled for a public hearing, Acting Chairman John
Nichols extended a courtesy to a citizen that wished to speak regarding the item.
Trish Klein, 9214 Brookwater Circle, College Station, Texas. She spoke of concerns
regarding traffic in the area.
Commissioner Strong motioned to approve the Preliminary Plat. Commissioner
Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0).
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance from Section 8-K.l (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)
Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner, presented the variance and the Preliminary Plat and
recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat upon approval of the variance.
•
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes May 18, 2006
Page2of5
Commissioner Christiansen motioned to approve the variance as requested.
Commissioner Strong seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0).
• Commissioner Sanford motioned to approve the Preliminary Plat as presented by
staff with the condition that Engineering Comments #2 be met. Commissioner
Strong seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0).
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 #OS-500046 (JP/CC)
Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the Final Plat stating that it was in
compliance with all the Subdivision Regulations and that approximately 30 to 35 phone
calls were received and all were in favor of the Final Plat.
Mike McClure, Engineer, 1008 Woodcreek Drive, College Station, Texas. Mr. McClure
gave background information regarding the project and answered general questions from
the Commission.
Ben Kirby, Vice-President, Southern Plantation Homeowners Association, 3816 Stoney
Creek Lane, College Station, Texas. Mr. Kirby asked questions regarding limitations
regarding the size of homes, participation by the owners in the HOA, and access to get to
the common area for the HOA.
• Mike McClure was called back to speak by the Commission. Mr. McClure and Ms.
Prochazka clarified the concerns of Mr. Kirby informing him that the city does not
regulate housing size that all property owners within the plat with be HOA members, and
that there are multiple points of access through existing right-of--ways to the common
area.
Commissioner Sanford motioned to approve the Final Plat which included a Replat.
Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0).
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 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. Case #06-500081 (JP/CC)
Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, presented the Final Plat and Replat.
No one spoke during the public hearing.
Commissioner Strong motioned to approve the Final Plat and Replat as presented.
Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0).
.7
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes May 18, 2006 Page 3 of 5
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)
•
Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner, presented the amendment to Section 7.4 of the
Unified Development Ordinance.
Steve Arden, 311 Cecelia Loop, College Station, Texas. Mr. Arden spoke in reference to
the importance and need for long range planning and to address the issues in Mr. Fogle's
presentation in a more positive way.
Ben Kirby, 3816 Stoney Creek Lane, College Station, Texas. Mr. Kirby asked questions
in general pertaining to the requirements for a Traffic Impact Analysis Study.
Commissioner Christiansen motioned to recommend approval of the amendment as
presented to the City Council. Commissioner Strong seconded the motion, motion
passed (4-0).
10. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an amendment to the
Unified Development Ordinance, Section S.S.C Planned Development District (PDD).
Case #OS-500023 (TF)
Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner, presented the amendment to Section S.S.C of the Unified
Development Ordinance.
•
No one spoke at the public hearing.
Commissioner Sanford motioned to approve the amendment as presented and
recommend to City Council. Commissioner Strong seconded the motion, motion
passed (4-0).
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 #OS-500023 (JP)
Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner, gave a presentation on Section 7.3 of the Unified
Development Ordinance.
No one spoke at the public hearing.
Commissioner Strong made a motion that staff retain the current (10" to 28"
driveway standards) Section 7.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance as presented
by staff. Commissioner Christiansen seconded the motion, motion failed (2-2).
Commissioners Strong and Christiansen were in favor of the recommendation;
Commissioners Sanford and Nichols were in opposition of the recommendation.
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes May 18, 2006
Page 4 of 5
12. Adjourn.
Commissioner Strong motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Sanford seconded the
• motion, motion passed (4-0).
Approved:
Scott Shafer, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Attest:
Lisa Lindgren, Staff Assistant
Planning and Development Services
•
•
P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes May 18, 2006 Page 5 of 5
•
CITY 4F COLLEGE STATION
Planning ~ I)evilopment Services
Absence Request Form
For Elected and Appointed Officers
Name Ken Reynolds
Request Submitted on Date: May 15, 2006
I will not be in attendance at the meeting of
for the reason(s) specified:
• Out of town on business.
May 18, 2006
(Date)
~~T'-~-
Signature
o: counc i I/absenreq. doc
lI
u
STAFF REPORT
• Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner Report Date: May 19, 2006
Email: jreeves@cstx.gov Meeting Date: June 1, 2006
Project Number: 06-00500089
Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat and
Variance Requests to the Subdivision Regulations Sections 12-1.5 Half-Streets,
12-K.1 General, 12-J.2 Utility Easements, 12-R.3 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan,
and 15 Ownership for Williams Creek Phases 5, 6 and 7 consisting of 47 lots on
116.15 acres located at 9500 Rock Prairie Road at the southeast corner of
Greens Prairie and Rock Praire Road.
Applicant: Joe & Janet Johnson, Property Owners
Staff Recommendations: If the variances are approved, Staff recommends
approval of the Preliminary Plat as submitted.
Item Summary: This item is for consideration of variance requests to the
Subdivision Regulations and for a Preliminary Plat for Williams Creek
Subdivision Phases 5, 6 and 7.
The Preliminary Plat is being considered under the Subdivision Regulations
• Section 12, regarding rural subdivisions within the City limits. The property is
zoned A-OR, accordingly. The developer is requesting a number of variances as
follows. A variance letter is attached:
• Section 12-1.5 Half Streets -The Subdivision Regulations prohibit the
platting of half streets. However, in this case the existing Rock Prairie
Road is covered by an easement and the public currently has use of the
entire roadway. This development will dedicate half of the ROW for a
Major Collector.
• 12-J.2 Utility Easements -The Subdivision Regulations require a
minimum 20-foot Public Utility Easement. The applicant is requesting to
reduce this width to 15 feet.
• 12-R.3 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan -The Subdivision Regulations
require a Sewer Master Plan for a rural residential subdivision. The
applicant is requesting a variance to this requirement.
• Section 15 Ownership -The Subdivision Regulations require that all
infrastructure be dedicated to the City. Wellborn Special Utility District
(SUD) is required by law to own their water system that serves their
customers.
The plat is proposing lots in excess of one acre with On Site Sewer Facility
(OSSF). The subdivision will have access to Greens Prairie and Rock Prairie
Roads. The water system is required to be designed and constructed in
•
accordance with City Standards. A water design report is required to confirm fire
• flow capacity of the water system.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The subject property is in compliance
with the Land Use Plan. The property is bound on the north by Phases 1-4 of the
subdivision and on the west by Rock Prairie Road. The Thoroughfare Plan
designates Greens Prairie as a Major Arterial and Rock Prairie as a Major
Collector. The main entrance to existing phases (Williams Creek Drive) is from
Greens Prairie Road. One street off of Rock Prairie road has also been platted
for the existing phases. Two additional access points (residential streets) are
being proposed off of Rock Prairie with this development. To the east and to the
south, the property backs up to approximately 242 acres of flood plain.
Item Background: The subject property was annexed into the College Station
City limits in November of 2002 and Phases 1-4 of the approved Preliminary Plat
for Williams Creek Subdivision have been platted.
In March of 2004, the City Council approved a zone change from A-O
Agricultural Open to A-OR Rural Residential for the 211.14 acre-tract of the
Williams Creek Subdivision, and in July of 2005 the City Council approved a
zone change from A-O to A-OR for the additional approximate 117-acre tract of
proposed Williams Creek Estates, now called Phases 5-7. A-OR has a
minimum lot size of 1 acre.
• The original Williams Creek Master Development was approved in May of 2004,
then was revised in September of 2005 to include additional residential acreage
that was previously shown as part of a large reserve tract.
A number of variances to the Subdivision Regulations were approved with the
Preliminary Plat of Phases 1 through 4 of the Williams Creek Subdivision. Some
of these same variances are being requested with this Preliminary Plat.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Parks Board met on April
20th and recommended approval of accepting fee in lieu of the park land. .
Phases 5, 6, and 7 include 47 lots, which will require $9,306 for Land in Lieu and
with the Park Development fees included, the total fee will be $26,132
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 with Variance Request Letter
3. Copy of Preliminary Plat (provided in packet)
• INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water required for plat: Each lot is required to have public water service, as
shown on the plat. The majority of the lots in this subdivision are in the Wellborn
SUD CCN. Water service will be provided by a Wellborn Water line. Lots in the
College Station CCN will be served from this line through an existing agreement.
Fire flows are required.
Water Service: Water is to be provided to each structure, as required.
Sewer required for plat: Each lot is larger than the 1-acre minimum
requirement for on-site septic.
Sewer Service: Sewer to be provided by on-site septic.
Street(s) required for plat: All streets shown on plat are required for this
subdivision.
Streets/Access: Greens Prairie Road is a Major Arterial and Rock Prairie Road
is a Major Collector on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. Residential access is
precluded on collector streets and larger, where applicable.
Off-site Easements required for plat: None required.
• Drainage: This development shall comply with City of College Station drainage
ordinances and policies.
Flood Plain: A few of these lots have 100-year floodplain on them, but are large
enough that development of the lots should stay out of the flood plain. Any
development by individual lot owners in the floodplain will require compliance
with FEMA floodplain regulations and City of College Station drainage
ordinances and policies as noted on the plat.
Oversize request: None
Impact Fees: None
Parkland Dedication Fees: The Parks Board met on April 20th and
recommended approval of accepting fee in lieu of the park land. Phases 5, 6,
and 7 include 47 lots, which will require $9,306 for Land in Lieu and with the Park
Development fees included, the total fee will be $26,132
•
YK/ r,
•
~.
~,I"L'Y OF (,OLt.I:C;I; 5'1'rt"1'K);v`
!'l,trmiu; u¢ IJetxdul,t»,•ut ti,•rvicri
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION ~ol~
The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P & Z Commission
consideration.
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
,~~iling Fee of $400.00.
Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations - $100 (if applicable)
Application completed in full.
~L Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A revised mylar original must be submitted after staff review.)
,~,[ One (1) copy of the approved Master Plan if applicable.
-~ A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
N R Rezoning Application if zone change is proposed.
~ Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provide proof of
approval (if applicable). ~-~~~~~, ~ ~ Z n~ 204
Date of Preapplication Conference: ~} -~-Z01S
NAME OF SUBDIVISION ~t` ~ +~~ 5 t`re e f C Sr,.~od~vti~;,., •- P~cJ~ S S (o ~,,,~ `]
• SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Selo a~ ~~~ Pry%r~t 20~ ~es~
Y) e.'~ur~y, ~ act~C Pr'a r~ ~ ~.oo.d~ ~ Co~a-s G.~c.~'~
APPLICANT/PROJ\ECT MANAG_ER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name Jo~~rSo~ -F-KV~fj-w.e~-~'~c. -- ~~~e- ~IQ~r•roH
Street Address ~ ~ oo so w~ C.o-M y-~v a a ~ $~•~ ~e,~ City Cm1e ++~c r.
State ~_ Zip Code -) ~ ~3Zt E-Mail Address ~er~ohh foti i i4~Q Q{~~'~n•o~l•~o-~
Phone Number 3 2 S- (vZ S- Zl Z q Fax Number ~ 2 - 6 Z S- 3 6 7 2
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for
multiple owners): __ 11
Name _ ~OC ~d )Gv~~~- JohhSo~n
Street Address ~ ~O~ 50~.~~ Gsw~v-w~c; a~ f~~ ~,~- City CO e w~c~n
State ~~_ Zip Code '1 b g3~ E-Mail Address 1oC ao~-,fo~ ~ ~g9Q i~n.o:l,cot+•+
Phone Number - ~ 2 ~ - ~2 s- 21 Z~ Fax Number _ 3 ~ ZS - 367 2
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
C
Name C .v ,~ Oey~4.~•~w.e..k t L,~ • "_ ~~vt ~M~`Z . ~• E.
C~
Street Address ___ Z°10y `..o~~N..~,rc ~~ve Swi~lt City C.A1~~~e S~c~'1~..
State ~~ Zip Code ~ ~ ~i ~ E-Mail Address ~ oe ~ 2 ~ ~~ c.„ <n
Phone Number 7 ~O 4'- 7 ~ ~ 3 Fax Number _ 7 to~~ ~ ~ S 9'
F ~ ,. r~ .. t ;~t t , , _..~
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
P&Z CASE NO.:
DATE SUBMITTED:
• rL01~ Vi:171 CA-f IONI = Z . Z(o) AG
~~xGf.,~~~pir.~ .~'
Total Acres Of Subdivision ~~j a~• R-O-W Acreage ~ ~ Total # Of Lots
Number Of Lots By Zoning District ~ /_~0~ / /_
Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
2 • ~3 / 1a--0 2
Floodplain Acreage Z~. ~3 D~G•
Parkland dedication by acreage or fee? ~re - ~-dp-s:~•~ ~~2a~o~{
A statement addressing any differences between the Preliminary Plat and approved Master Plan (if applicable)
~1~c~.=~~.~b( flr~'i cr~c S1vw+n a~-~A f4- Pluw~~J st- r-r1%dyt~:..l /b}f ; s 47 ?nsfcc~
Requested variances to subdivision re ulations & reason for same 5 cc RQg~~J~.,1 Uo/:c~« s
Requested oversize participation Nor c
Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the 1=ina1 Plat:
ACREAGE:
# of Acres to be dedicated # of acres in floodplain
# of acres in detention # of acres in greenways
OR
FEE IN LIEU OF LAND:
# of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 = $
•
(date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Board
The applicant has prepared Phis application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits
attached hereto are Prue and correct. The undersigned hereby .requests approval by the City of
College Station of the above identified plat and attests that al! respective owners have been identified
on is appli ' n,
(f'~~'
Si ture and it Date
,.,~;,;
~.ra
• Williams Creek Subdivision -Phases 5, 6 8 7
Preliminary Plat -Requested Variances to Subdivision Regulations
REQUESTED VARIANCES TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS & REASON FOR
SAME:
These same variances were previously granted with the Preliminary Plat for
Phases 1 thru 4 of this subdivision.
Section 72-1.5 Half-Streefs:
This section requires thaf no half-streets shall be platted. The existing Rock
Prairie Road right-of--way has never been dedicated as a public street right-of-
way. During the platting process, this development will dedicate one-half (40) of
the 80'right-of--way required for-Rock Prairie Road as a major collector street.
The 40' wide right-of--way dedication is from the current center of Rock Prairie
Road.
72-J Easements-
Section-J.2 Utility Easements:
This section requires utility easements twenty feet (20) in width to be located
either at the front or rear of all lots. In order to protect more of the existing
vegetation, the Developer requests a variance to this section to allow these utility
easements to be fifteen feet (15) in width.
12-R.3 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
• This section requires a Gravity Sanitary Sewer Master Plan to be designed for
the subdivision. The Developer requests a variance to this section since it is
proposed that the residential lots will each have its own on-site sewage facility.
The Developer requests that the plan and profile layouts of all future gravity lines
not be required, but that only a schematic plan of the sewer system be provided.
The time and expense required to provide plan and profile drawings is significant
and these drawings will be of little benefrt since the sewer system is not likely to
be constructed.
Section 75: Ownership
This section requires that, "Upon completion by the subdivider, and acceptance
by the City of the streets, alleys, sidewalks, parks, drainage facilities, and utilities
required to be installed by the subdivider, they shall become the property of the
Cify of College Stafion, Texas." The Developer is requesting a variance to this
section since the Subdivision is located in the CCN area of Wellborn Special
Utility District. The water service will be provided by Wellborn SUD and water
improvements will be owned by them. The water system will be constructed fo
meet all City of College Sfaton standards and requirements.
•
• VARIANCE CRITERIA
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 Cornnnission shall prescribe only conditions that it deems not prejudicial to
the public interest. 1n making the findings hereinbefore required, the
Commission sha11 take into account the nature of the proposed use of the
tend 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 wilt 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.7 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."
•
•
STAFF REPORT
• Project Manager: Trey Fletcher, Sr. Planner Re ort Date: Ma 22 2006
P Y
Email: tletcher@cstx.gov Meeting Date: June 1, 2006
Project Number: 06-00500093
Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a
Rezoning from A-O Agricultural Open to A-P Administrative Professional for
Harvey Hillsides, Block 1, Lot 31 consisting of 0.69 acres located at 3970 Harvey
Road, generally located between Pamela Lane and Marcy Lane.
Applicant: Brady Brittain, Property Owner
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the rezoning.
Item Summary: The purpose of this request is to establish A-P Administrative-
Professional zoning for this 0.69-acre lot. According to the application, the
proposed use is an office building. The subject lot is 150' (wide) x 200' (deep), is
currently vacant, and abuts the City limits to the south. Both parcels flanking the
subject lot are developed with single-family residential structures. Buffer
requirements per Section 7.6 of the UDO will apply to all three interior lot lines
should this rezoning be approved.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations:
The subject lot falls into Sub-Area 7A of the 30/60 Area Amendment. Therein,
"rezoning proposals for changing the residences fronting Harvey Road in this
area to a commercial use may be expected in the future. Zoning changes should
not be made on a lot by lot basis. Such conversions should be addressed
through the consolidation of property. Non-residential zones should be limited to
lower intensity uses. The relatively small lots in this area abut other residential
lots. The lot sizes and limited natural buffers in the area limit the ability to
mitigate land use conflicts and impacts. The PDD approach should be used to
provide for any land use changes through consolidation of property."
The Land Use Plan denotes this area as Planned Development. Prior to the
Mixed-Use Opportunities Study (2003), this area was shown as Mixed Use. In
2001, the 30/60 Area Amendment was adopted. This was one in a series of
small area plans that were completed to provide additional direction beyond the
Comprehensive Plan and to integrate changed conditions since the adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan in 1997.
The Planned Development designation on the Land Use Plan is best
implemented through either the Planned Development District (PDD) or the
Planned Mixed-Use District (P-MUD). However, this rezoning request does not
integrate the property flanking it which is of different ownership. Optimally, the
• PDD would be best, consolidating the adjacent properties for rezoning and
defining a specific list of permitted uses and properly managing the access and
• land use conflicts that may result.
The property fronts Harvey Road (SH 30) which is a Major Arterial on the
Thoroughfare Plan. While TxDOT is developing plans to widen FM 60, there are
no plans to widen Harvey Road at this time.
Staff's recommendation of denial is based on recommendations within the 30/60
Area Amendment, the need to consolidate access points, and concerns
associated with the incremental development of small lots adjacent to existing
residential uses.
Item Background: This area was annexed in 1980, and was zoned A-O
Agricultural Open at that time. It is platted as Harvey Hillsides, Block 1, Lot 31.
The southwest corner of Harvey Road and Pamela Lane was rezoned to a
combination of A-P Administrative-Professional and R-1 Single-family
Residential in 2002. Thus far, no non-residential development of this corner has
occurred. Development in the area includes Crescent Pointe, located along
Copperfield Drive, north of Harvey Road. Within this development a mix of uses
is proposed that includes general commercial, office and multi-family uses.
Immediately north of the subject lot is land that was previously proposed for large
duplex residential development, but the plans have expired.
• Related Advisory Board Recommendations: N/A
Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body
on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council.
The Commission options are:
1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted;
2. Recommend denial;
3. Table indefinitely; or,
4. Defer action to a specified date.
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 05-16-2006 and 06-07-2006
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 06-01-2006
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 06-22-2006
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners within 200': 9
Response Received: Four calls have been received of general inquiry
nature. The Harvey Hillsides HOA was notified as a courtesy.
•
Supporting Materials:
• 1. Small Area Map (SAM) and Aerial Map
2. Application
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
•
Water: A 12-inch water line exists on the north side of Harvey Road. A
12-inch line extends across Harvey at Pamela, and an 8-inch line
extends across Harvey at Marcy Lane.
Sewer: An 8-inch line exists on the south side of Harvey Road.
Streets: Harvey Road (SH 30) is a Major Arterial on the City's
Thoroughfare Plan. It is maintained by TxDOT. Access to this lot
requires permits through TxDOT. A Minor Collector thoroughfare is
shown on the Thoroughfare Plan to extend from Harvey Road at Pamela
Lane to the north and connect to another unnamed Minor Collector and
FM 158, which is a Major Arterial. Both Pamela Lane and Marcy Lane
are dead-end streets.
Off-site Easements: None known at this time.
Drainage: Carters Creek drainage basin.
Floodplain: No regulatory floodplain exists on this parcel.
Oversize request: None known at this time.
Impact Fees: N/A
•
\ Z
_ Z
,V ~~~ A ,~, ~ p
\~~ !~~ ~ . - ~~ ~ H~wyy
`~ \ '~'~ o ~- LL
r- ~ L'7
O
o Q ryrynry m m
N IU -\
M V 6
~ r.... of~5~
°'
LJ ~ o o M
o ~~ N ~.v rn
y ~(';~,~
~ c ~~
1
'~ (C.~ r V ^N t~~~
~ ~ ~ N S`Gs` ~ ~ O
o ~ N
LS -~!~ (Q
o J V
N
o °
(lnfl N ~e./_~
D o ~' ` O
fl` ~~ a ~ J
`~.,~
~ Y
t?I .~ ~ ~
~ ~ w
a a ~ a
' J
,~ J_
0
c~ _
.T ~
` W
O ~
O ~
a =
ti~
J
~ ~ _w
ti
ti4 W
Sw
G
a
O
w
~~~s~~ ~
ti~ O
Q
9.
CITY OF COLLEGE S'IAfION
Planning trDevelopment Servicrr
~~~
G~ FO FFI U8E ONLY
,,~' CASE NO.
J
~~ DATE SUBMITTED j
.~
f/71~--
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING APPLICATION
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
If a petition for rezoning is denied by the City Council, another application for rezoning shall not be filed within
a period of 180 days from the date of denial, except with permission of the Planning 8 Zoning Commission or
City Council. The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for consideration:
_f~pplication completed in full.
~~// 500.00 application fee
Two (2) copies of a fully dimensioned map on 24"x38" paper showing:
a. Land affected;
b. Legal description of area of proposed change; .
c. Present zoning;
. Zoning classification of all abutting land; and
e. All public and private rights-of-way and easements bounding and intersecting subject land.
Written legal description of subject property (metes 8 bounds or lot ~ block of subdivision, whichever is
applicable).
The Rezoning Supporting Information sheet completed in full. A CAD (dxf/dwg) or GIS (shp) digital file
may be required for more complex rezoning requests.
Date of Required Preapplication Conference: December 19 2005
APPLICANT'S INFORMATION:
• Name Brady Brittain
Street Address 3001 Durango St. _ _
City Colle a Station State TX Zip Code 77845
E-Mail Address bradv(c~assistbcs.com
Phone Number L} 846-1700 Fax Number (979) 846-6863
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name Same
Street Address
State Zip Code
Phone Number
city
Fax Number
E-Mail Address
This property was conveyed to owner by deed dated 11-Nov-2043 and recorded in Volume 5733 ,
Page 22 of the Brazos County Deed Records.
General Location of Property: Harve Road b tween Pamela Lane and Marc Lane
Address of Property: Unk. Harvey Road Colle a Station. TX
Legal Description: Ham, rvev Hillsides. Block 1 Lot 31
Acreage -Total Property: 0.69 Acres
Existing Zoning: A-O Proposed Zoning: A-P
Present Use of Property: Vacant Land
. Proposed Use of Property: Office Building
6/13/03 Rage 1 of 2
ktZONING 3UPPQRTING INFOR~....TI4N
1.} List the changed or changing conditions in the area or in the City which make this zone change
• necessary.
Harvey Hillsides was originally developed as a residential subdivision outside the city limits. As the city has
grown, so has the traffic and commercial development along Harvey Road. These conditions suggest that the
property would best be used as commercial property rather than residential.
2.) Indicate whether or not this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. If it is not,
explain why th® Plan is incorrect.
Jt is my understanding that the comprehensive plan calls for a PUD for the subject property, including Lots 30,
32, & 33. Lot 30 is currently a single family dwelling. We contacted the owners of Lot 30 and they are not
interested in re-zoning their lot. I have also contacted the owner of Lot 32 & 33 and he is also not interested in
re-zoning at this time. Based on recent commercial development and traffic along Harvey Road, it seems the
right time to move forward with re-zoning for development of the property.
• 3.) List any other reasons to support this zone change.
I have consulted with members of the Harvey Hillsides architectural control committee and based on our initial
discussions, they would support the conversion of the property to office use. The proposed use would be
consistent with the continued growth along Harvey Road.
The applicant has prepansd this application and supporfing information and certifies that the facts
stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and corECf. IF APPLICATION IS FILED 8Y
ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A PC)WER OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER.
Signa re of owner (or agent) or applicant
7" r
Date
..
6i13~03
Page 2 of 2
• ~f`
City of College Station
Planning & Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
•
DATE: May 22, 2006
TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Trey Fletcher, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Lance Simms, Acting Director of Planning & Development Services
SUBJECT: UDO Annual Review -Specific Notice Requirements
Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an
amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 3.1 General
Approval Procedures related to specific notice requirements.
Item Summary: This item was discussed at the May 18, 2006 Workshop
meeting, and no changes were recommended at that time.
The substance of this proposed amendment considers issues associated with
specific notice requirements as administered by Planning & Development
Services staff that 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.
• Attachment: Redlined Copy of Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures
Article 3. Development Review Procedures
Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures
• Article 3. Development Review Procedures
3.1 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.
C7
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;
t. Zoning map amendments (rezonings); and
y. 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:
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.
Unified Development Ordinance
4/3/06
3-1
City of College Station, Texas
~r11
J
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. Ail 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 notificat(on,
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:
1) 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
•
F. Required Public Notice
i. 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 Permit 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 f re thg 1~`'' day before the date of the hearinafor ~ ~ 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 .meeting
reviewed.
•
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
municipality, properly addressed with postage paid, in U.S. mail efore_ the _i~_
day b~forg ht e d~~e of the hearing,.
c. Content of Notice
A published or mailed notice shall 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
a) 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
Deleted: at least ten (10) days ~
prior to the date set for the
public hearing.
Formatted: Superscript
•
Article 3. Development Review Procedures
Section 3.1 General Approval Procedures
r ~II
~J
3.2
Comprehensive Plan Amendment X X
Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning) X X
UDO Text Amendment X X
Conditional Use Permit X X
Subdivision* X
Variances - ZBA X
Administrative Appeals X
* Only when required per the LOCAL GoveRNMerir Cope.
•
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.
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.
Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning)
A. PUrpOSe Preapplicatlon
Conre rence
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 ^ppuwnon
particular area or in the City generally, or to rezone an area or Submittal
extend the boundary of an existing zoning district. All amendments Starr
shall be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, which may be Review
amended according to the procedure in Section 3.19, Comprehensive
Plan Amendment.
P~ann~ng a
B. Initiation of Amendments Zoning
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 city
ceunrn
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
•
STAFF REPORT
• Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Sr. Planner Report Date: May 22, 2006
Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov Meeting Date: June 1, 2006
Project Number: 05-00500044
Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment request for the area generally located east of and adjacent to State
Highway 6, north of Woodcreek Subdivision, south of Emerald Parkway, and west of
Foxfire Subdivision, from Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, and Single-Family Medium
Density, to Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, Institutional, Office, and Planned
Development.
Applicant: Charles A. Ellison, P.A., & The IPS Group, agents for East Bypass
Development Group, property owners
Request: The item before you is a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment that has
been proposed by the applicants and amended by City staff. The request is from
Regional Retail, Industrial R&D, and Single-Family Medium Density, to Regional Retail,
Industrial R&D, Institutional, Office, and Planned Development. Over the past 14 months
staff has received considerable input on this proposal through public forums and
discussions that have involved a number of parties. Information regarding this request
has been dispersed using regular mail, a-mail, the 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 neighborhoods. 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 staffs recommendation
below). With this amendment, staff proposes to change the land use designation on
several other properties.
^ The Lutheran Church to the south is currently shown for Regional Retail. Staff
proposes Institutional on this property to reflect the current church development.
^ The area to the east of the proposed Regional Retail is currently shown for
Single Family Medium Density. Staff proposes Planned Development on this
property and believes that this area should be master planned to include
neighborhood service and residential uses. This area should be a 'step-down' in
intensity from the Regional Retail to the existing housing on Foxfire Drive.
^ The majority of the area north of Sebesta is currently zoned for and is developing
as an industrial complex. Staff proposes to reflect the current state of the
property by changing this area to Industrial R&D.
The Comprehensive Plan defines the following Land Use Designations:
^ Regional Retail - "areas permitting regional scale development oftax-generating
developments such as retail centers, service, commercial, restaurants, etc.
These uses are generally dependent on good access to highways and arterials."
C7
^ Office - "areas permitting medium scale development of tax generating
• developments such as office parks, corporate offices, and office lease space.
These uses are usually dependent on good access to highways and local
arterials."
^ Industrial / Research ~ Development - "areas permitting medium to large scale
development of tax generating developments such as industrial/R&D parks,
technology centers, clean manufacturing, and assembly/distribution. These
developments are very dependent upon access to highways, rail lines, and/or
airports."
^ Institutional - "Schools, churches, hospitals, and other quasi-public uses. These
are usually neighborhood scale developments from 5-10 acres and use local
streets for access."
^ Planned Development - "This is to be used where large areas of land may be
developed with a mix, or collection, of uses, but not necessarily amixed-use
pattern. The planned development category emphasizes the need to master
plan the area to ensure appropriate placement of different uses. The PDD
zoning districts may be the best approach for zoning for development in these
areas. The approach provides maximum flexibility for the market and developer
while ensuring a compatible 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 (2000): HOK plan was changed to reflect Mixed Use instead
of Commercial at the northwest corner of Sebesta and Highway 6.
Mixed Use Opportunity Study (2003): This study removed the 'Mixed Use' land
use designation and is the land use plan we see today. The locations of the uses
on the plan were based on current zonings of the properties. For properties that
are zoned as'holding zones' (A-O and R-1) along the bypass, the Land Use
Plan was changed to reflect land use designations that complied as much as
possible with the East Bypass Plan.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Land Use Plan
designations as shown below:
•
^ The appropriate zoning districts for the area shown as Regional Retail are a
future East Bypass Zoning district or PDD Planned Development District that are
consistent with the uses specified in the East Bypass Small Area Action Plan.
^ The appropriate zoning district for the area shown as Planned Development is
• PDD Planned Development District. This district should also be consistent with
the land uses specified in the East Bypass Small Area Action plan and may
include a mix of uses to include neighborhood commercial, office, and residential
• components, with single-family residential development abutting the existing
residential properties in Foxfire and Woodcreek Subdivisions to provide a 'step-
down' in intensity of uses.
^ The appropriate zoning district for the area shown as Office is A-P Administrative
Professional.
^ The appropriate zoning districts for the area shown as Industrial R&D are C-2
Commercial Industrial, M-1 Light Industrial, and R&D Research & Development.
As requested in the amended proposal submitted by the applicants, City staff has
developed the Traffic Mitigation Plan for the area (attached). Staff has received
comments from area residents that the Traffic Mitigation Plan does not adequately
address the concerns of the neighborhood. Staff 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.
Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the
question of Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which will be ultimately decided by City
Council. The Commission options are:
1. Recommend approval as submitted;
2. Recommend approval with changes;
3. Recommend denial;
4. Table; or,
• 5. Defer action to a specified date.
Supporting Materials:
• 1. Small Area Map & Aerial
2. Existing LUP and Proposed LUP
3. Neighborhood Meeting Notes- May 10, 2005
4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes- June 21, 2005
5. Neighborhood Meeting Notes- April 11, 2006
6. Neighborhood Meeting Comment Card Responses -June 2005
7. Neighborhood Meeting Comment Card Responses -April 2006
8. Area Zoning History
9. 1995 Meeting Notes
10. 1996 Meeting Notes
11. Traffic Impact Study
12. Traffic Mitigation Plan
13. Application & Revision
C,
•
•
~.
~ ~~
•
•
.. _ •~
°e `'' ~ .,
R o e
' g '~;~
~. ~ 6
. '~ n ~ w
. ~ it
_ _ _ ~
'3.
~.:.... _
R
F
U II
0
~,
EARUL RU06ER FRWY .,:.... .... .................
_ F
-~
R
.!~ ,
k ~ ~
R
F ~
R p if
a ~ ,~
~ 3 ~ 0' 8 i
r .~~'
r ~P
c < P.
n ~
~~ R t'
~~6 `., . ... .
~~ ~~ ~~ ~ w
a ;
~~ U_ i ,• . rl.R
-~ ~~ x
z~,
~,
W ~
,Z
~ W
z~
W ~
= Z
W W
~ Q
d
~ Z
~ a
.n+ ~ j
,•n ~~W//
ny~ Y.
•~sa ' O
~Y ~ N L.L
,' _
n ~ ~o ~ , ~M1~~~ w
.~ ~~ o
.,, _ ~~
- ~'
~ eA n
_ ~ (S
~,
nn
n
nn
r~
~~
~.
~.
•-
.~
W
C~
Woodcreek /Sebesta Comprehensive
• Plan Amendment Proposal
Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
6:30 - 9:30 p.m.
Holy Cross Lutheran Church
1200 Foxfire drive
The purpose of this meeting was to present a revised land use plan in
the area of Sebesta Road and Woodcreek Drive and gather feedback
from the adjacent neighborhoods. All residents of Foxfire, Woodcreek,
Sandstone, and the southern portion of Emerald Forest, and all Home
Owners' Associations were invited to the meeting. Approximately 185-
200 residents were in attendance. The following are a list of concerns
and preferences expressed by the residents at the meeting:
Land Use:
^ Would prefer to have Industrial next to single family homes
^ Office land use designation and A-P Administrative Professional
• zoning may be appropriate adjacent to neighborhood uses
^ Appropriate use next to single family is a park
^ Concerned with retail adjacent to homes in Woodcreek
^ C-1 permitted uses not acceptable in this location
^ Concerned with the future location of Wal-Mart
^ Do not want `big box' or car dealerships
^ Concerned that the neighborhood may be `boxed in' by retail
^ Some neighborhood scaled retail may be appropriate, but not
next to the neighborhood
• Concerned with noise from retail establishments, ie: public
address systems next to homes
^ Concerned with flexibility of Planned Development. The Planned
Development designation is too nebulous
^ Texas Digital property and the associated greenway should not
be shown as `Planned Development'
^ Would like single family to remain on the Ledbetter tract (even
though it may cause similar issues in the future)
^ Greenbelts should be provided along highways
^ Commercial along highways is not aesthetically pleasing
^ Do not want any high density residential, multi-family, or duplex
^
• Concerned with what might be developing on highway south of
Rock Prairie Ro
d
a
• Transportation:
^ Concerned with how retail traffic would get in and out of area
^ Concerned with existing traffic problems at the Rock Prairie
bridge
^ City needs to take a closer look at how the proposals with
increase traffic in the area or change traffic patterns
^ Traffic increase on Emerald Parkway
^ Concerned that no traffic plan was presented at meeting
^ Concerned with cut-through traffic from development south of
Rock Prairie Road
^ Need overpass between Emerald Parkway and Rock Prairie Road
for retail to be appropriate in this area
^ Why is a Transportation Impact Analysis not done earlier in the
process (with most intense use for site)
^ City needs to work more closely with TxDOT
^ Need to look at Thoroughfare Plan to deal with increasing traffic
^ Concerned with the TxDOT changes. Concerned that TxDOT is
perusing changes regardless of land use decisions
^ Need to coordinate land use plan with TxDOT plans, and TxDOT
should coordinate with City land use plans
^ Need a signal at the Emerald Parkway underpass
•
Drai na e:
9
^ Concerns with drainage and impervious surfaces from new
developments
^ City needs to expand definition of the floodplain
Other concerns:
^ Concerned with potential adverse affect to property values
^ Existing buffer required by ordinance is not large enough
^ Concerned with the substitutions allowed for the buffer. Would
like for the neighborhood to be able to decide which option is
used
^ Concerned that Texas Digital buffer / greenway is not adequate
or will be changed
^ Feel that proposal does not protect integrity of the neighborhood
^ Feel that City Council will disregard neighborhood concerns
because of the desire to increase sales tax generating properties
^ Concerned that P&Z and Council may not be watching out for
neighborhoods
^ 1995 agreement' addressed these issues -these should be used
as the current guidelines
•
^ Concerned that property owner can circumvent the process and
• work out a deal' with the City Council
^ Concerned about future applications to change land use plan
again. Concerned with zoning process and replatting of existing
unbuildable lots
*When those in attendance were asked to stand if they supported
Industrial remaining on the Plan for the area bound by Sebesta,
Woodcreek Subdivision, and Our Savior's Lutheran Church (under
construction), the majority stood in support.
•
•
Woodcreek /Sebesta Comprehensive
• Plan Amendment Proposal
Second Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
6:30 - 9:30 p.m.
Holy Cross Lutheran Church
1200 Foxfire drive
The purpose of this meeting was to present an updated land use plan
proposal in the area of Sebesta Road and Woodcreek Drive and gather
feedback from the adjacent neighborhoods. All residents of Foxfire,
Woodcreek, Sandstone, and the southern portion of Emerald Forest,
and all Home Owners' Associations were invited to the meeting.
Approximately 200 residents were in attendance. The following are a
list of concerns and preferences expressed by the residents at this
meeting:
Land Use:
^ Land use should be consistent with East Bypass Small Area
Action Plan
• Need to limit uses
^ Deed restrictions are difficult to enforce
^ The office development in front of Emerald Forest is preferred
^ Believe that industrial property is marketable
Transportation:
^ Concerned with the time frame for TxDOT's construction of the
Rock Prairie overpass
^ City should solve current traffic problems before allowing
development in this area
^ Concerned with cut-through traffic
^ Concerned that Stonebrook is currently shown on the
Thoroughfare Plan as a major thoroughfare and that it will
eventually tie into Greens Prairie Rd.
^ Concerned with traffic level on Emerald Parkway and ability of
road to handle any more traffic
• Concerned with how and when AMS road will get constructed
^ Concerned with timing of traffic study and when they will get
results
^ Need traffic study prior to land use decision
^ Concerned with timing of TxDOT ramp realignment
• Believe that no more retail is needed in College Station
• Other concerns:
^ HOAs need more time to meet and work with applicants
^ Buffer ordinance not adequate if we allow developers to chose a
substitution (as listed in the Ordinance)
^ Concerned with who would maintain proposed 'natural' buffer
(property owner)
*Group expressed strong reservations about the plan, as presented,
via applause
•
U
Woodcreek /Sebesta Comprehensive
• Plan Amendment Proposal
Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
6:30 - 9:30 p.m.
Holy Cross Lutheran Church
1200 Foxfire drive
The purpose of this meeting was to present a revised land use plan in
the area of Sebesta Road and Woodcreek Drive and gather feedback
from the adjacent neighborhoods. All residents of Foxfire, Woodcreek,
Sandstone, and the southern portion of Emerald Forest, and all Home
Owners' Associations were invited to the meeting. Approximately 140
residents were in attendance. The following are a list of concerns and
preferences expressed by the residents at the meeting:
Land Use:
^ Concerned that the possibility of a big box" store anticipated at
Rock Prairie intersection might not have been take into account
• when traffic study was conducted.
^ Concern that the area would become another Gateway or Kroger
center; desire for small neighborhood retail
^ Feelings that the developers were aware, when the property was
purchased, that there were already enough small businesses in
the area; why should home owners suffer to ensure a return on
developer's investment?
^ Concerns about the usefulness of the South Corridor Plan (?) and
why it was not being used to solve this problem
^ The existing plan only allows industrial to be developed; why is
this being rescinded?
Transportation:
^ Concerns about past traffic load projections being accurate,
(specifically on the southbound frontage road).
^ Concerns about budget for mitigation plan.
^ Concerns regarding closing Foxfire off as an appropriate option.
^ Want information on how a neighborhood could become gated.
^ Concerns that an attempt to gate would not be approved.
^ Concerns that AMS road may create a greater problem than
solution.
• Concerns about the future plans for Foxfire.
^ Can AMS be south-bound from Emerald Forest to Sebesta?
• Concerns related to neighborhood vote for mitigation and a
possible referendum to remove mitigation (ie: Munson)
^ Curiosity about the nature of AMS road and the solution that its
construction may provide.
^ Concerns related to the methods that could be employed for
directing traffic around the neighborhoods.
^ Concerned that not enough City mitigation projects have been
conducted to be sure that it would be successful.
^ Concerns that while the construction of AMS road might alleviate
the traffic problem for Emerald Forrest, it would not help the
Foxfire area, and in fact, could increase volume on Foxfire.
^ Concerns about the increase of traffic with proximity to
Sandstone park.
^ Concerns regarding the connection of Stonebrook to Pebble
Creek.
^ Concerns about how traffic volume thresholds were determined,
and the level of confidence in their accuracy.
^ Request for accident projection rates to be included and
presented in future traffic counts.
^ Concerns about the time required for the Traffic Mitigation Plan
to be implemented as well as what would ensure that
• appropriate uses would develop.
^ Concerns regarding the development of a mitigation plan rather
than a prevention plan (with single family land uses).
^ Need to address the current problem and not wait for
development to complicate the matter.
^ Concern for the impact increased traffic would have on
pedestrian and child safety.
^ Feeling that the TMP is not effective in its current form and
needs to be reexamined.
• Feeling expressed that reacting to this problem rather than
preventing will worsen the situation.
Other concerns:
^ No members from the Shadowcrest and Chadwick H.O.A.'s
attended preceding Neighborhood Representative meetings.
^ Concern about which plan would be most effective and how the
City would make that determination.
U
COMMENT CARD RESPONSES
• Comment Cards were rovided at the second Nei hborhood Meeting.
p 9
The following comments were received by those in attendance:
LAND USE:
"If the tract along Sebesta is too limited access for single family,
how can it be adequate for planned development (Banks, etc)."
"My concern is for the planned development area. It is so close
to Foxfire. The city needs to be concerned with maintaining the
property values. Leaving the area zoned as planned
development demes the possibility of undesirable building."
"Have you actually spent time in our neighborhood? Something
like Academy Sports will absolutely RUIN the atmosphere of the
neighborhood as would banks, dry cleaners, etc. We are talking
about a "rural" feel in the heart of town. We do not all leave &
return at same time of day!!"
"Concerns about property values for homeowners, traffic, noise,
• lighting. Our property has already been devalued with the
addition of the Engineering Office Building & Marriott Hotel."
"The back area of the Marriott is not being well maintained.
What are the guarantees that this will not happen or other
properties to be built?"
"Office complex would be fine -there is no need for retail. The
office complex in front of Emerald Forest is the kind I am talking
about."
"Do not want any apartments, duplexes, or small homes where
students could move in."
"How binding is planned development? (legally)"
"Are deed restrictions on commercial retail more enforceable
than residential? Who enforces those? City?"
"R-1 is a viable possibility -north of Emerald Parkway new
houses have been very recently."
"Emerald Parkway has businesses that have been built recently.
• While access is better there it would seem that just a bit further
south would be a possibility for similar types of
businesses/offices."
"My only concern is that family oriented businesses (ie - no
bars, sexually oriented businesses) be allowed to develop."
"No apartments. No duplexes. No multi-housing units. Retail
on bypass w/proper ingress & egress ok."
TRANSPORTION:
"The 1994-1995 proposals were unacceptable because of traffic
concerns yet traffic has gotten much worse in the intervening
decade - so how can we rezone now without significant
improvements in traffic flow? I'm also particularly concerned
about increased cut-thru traffic on Stonebrook - cutting a new
road in front of Emerald Forest will increase rush traffic
dramatically."
"I am extremely concerned about retail traffic using Stonebrook
• as a cut-thru to Rock Prairie. I do not want this to turn into a
Munson Ave. situation."
"I live next to Woodcreek, and I am very concerned about the
traffic that will result on this road if this property is developed.
We chose this area because of the wonderful neighborhood
atmosphere, and I feel this would change with retail
development."
"Traffic is major concern -traffic study is very important."
"Why have you not already got a definite plan in place for the
Rock Prairie traffic problem?"
"Traffic flow is already a problem and will only get worse as
TxDOT moves the Rock Prairie entrance ramp northward as it
will as further development occurs. The City of CS should
protect its citizens from unsafe conditions wherever possible and
certainly should not create unsafe conditions by unwise re-
zoning of property fronting on the Hwy. 6 access road."
C,
"I live on Stonebrook -major concern about traffic. Believe
• owner should be able to sell w/o too much hassle from home
owners -need to solve traffic problems & let them sell -what
about an on/off to 6 @ Sebesta?"
"Traffic is a great concern considering current residents have no
option but cut through Emerald Forest to Foxfire unless taking
the Rock Prairie exit."
"Increased traffic on Stonebrook major concern. Do not rush
this proposal through without more feedback from residents in
Woodcreek &Foxfire."
BUFFERS & NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION:
"We live on 15t street in Foxfire (Fields). Please keep natural
buffer between subdivision and development."
"Deeply concerned about keeping natural buffer zones in the
neighborhood. When they developed Woodcreek up to Foxfire,
they completely bulldozed all the trees. Now we have noise, not
to mention aesthetics. We need to help the integrity of our
• neighborhoods."
"Concerns include the buffer/greenbelt between existing homes
and new use. An example is the newer Woodcreek development
which placed very dense housing directly to existing Foxfire lots
with all previous vegetation removed."
"Other concerns are lighting. Down lighting to minimize light
pollution is greatly appreciated vs. glaring street and parking lot
lighting."
"Thanks for your help on this matter. Please do not change
zoning from what it is now. I feel that if it is changed it will
degrade our home values and add to traffic congestion in area.
Traffic is bad now @ Rock Prairie & frontage roads now."
"Despite the property owners desires, property owner's best
interests would be served by leaving the zoning the way it is.
Investing in property is subject to market vagaries. We should
not have to be exposed to retail just to satisfy current owner's
sale wishes. The zoning should be left the way it is now. Over
•
1/z of the attendance at May 10 meeting did not want the land
• use changed."
"The current problems with traffic and land use are due to the
incompetence of past planners working for the city of College
Station. What reason is there to think that the current planners
are any more capable?"
"When the 'little, old, gray-haired' lady asked about the size of
trees expected in a buffer zone, the answer '2-inch caliper' was
completely misunderstood as a 2-inch tall tree. A question like
that should receive such information as height and diameter or
trunk."
GENERAL COMMENTS:
"The June 21 meeting went far better than the May 10 meeting."
"The reported number of instances of staff positions on issues
being reversed /rejected by Commission or Council was
remarkable. I would have expected a better record."
. "I hope that the safety of the region in question will be held as
the highest concern: the people, the land and the entities that
inhabit it and also the property values of the homeowners who
are citizens of this community as well as substantial taxpayers.
Remember that decreases in property values do not solely affect
the homeowner. Consider the revenue that goes into paying city
employee salaries."
"The HOA's have not been working directly with the landowners.
Wayne Rife has been talking with Chuck Ellison & Jane Kee but
this has not been a rep. for the HOA's. The HOA's want time to
get together as a group to select several representatives to
discuss land use options with the petitioners."
"I have only two comments, 1. East By Pass Small Area Action
Plan. Stick to the plan! This is irritating that you are asking us
our opinion - we have already spoken in that report. 2. It is the
opinion of many homeowners that the city is aligned with the
developers. The east by pass homeowners will counter this at
the voting booth next election if need be."
•
"It was one of the residents who spent many hours working with
• land owners originally. The issues have not changed -The land
owners took a risk with investments. No matter what is done
when they sell if the will make aprofit -just not make as much
as they would like. We need to stay with the 99 land use plan."
"College Station has a long way to go on the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. You have serious traffic issues now -and more
too come. You need to develop a solution. Between College
Station and TxDOT planning, I have heard inadequate planning &
solutions offered. The deed restrictions plan appears to be
inadequate. More interface is needed between HOA,
landowners, & city."
"Staff seems ready to 'approve" most items -how much
investigation and knowledge do these people actually possess of
the neighborhoods involved?"
"Continue to review previous plan and compare to proposed
plan- committees to review specific aspects before next large
group meeting -have subgroups present pros/cons and
recommendations."
• "To the ro ert owner -Just sa ~~NO." Think of the citizens of
P P Y Y
CS who live in the affected areas. Do we see apattern -staff
always recommends approval - do you not understand the
impact on the neighborhoods?"
"When this property was purchased -the neighborhoods were
already there. Just leave the zoning as it is. We don't want
more retail!!! We are surrounded!! There are just so many
unknowns -this is a disaster in the making."
"Please provide 4 months to complete the following items:
1. Negotiations between area homeowners and property
owners to find a reasonable solution.
2. Complete, independent traffic survey reported to
homeowner association's property owners private prior to
amending CLUP & going to P&Z."
"It seems developers/investors stand to make a profit on sale of
land while homeowners may see value of home decrease."
•
"We (the City) have a recent plan (2000) why change it to
• accommodate 5 or fewer investors. It was acceptable just 5
years ago. Why is it not still valid?"
"Perhaps owners cannot sell land at asking price because it's too
high. They took a change 25+ years ago. Why should
neighborhoods have potential decrease in property value to
protect their investment?"
•
U
COMMENT CARD RESPONSES -April 2006
• Comment Cards were provided at the third Neighborhood Meeting. The following
comments were received by those in attendance:
Sandstone
"This area along the bypass is unique because there is not access to highway 6 both
ways. A solution must be in place before construction begins; prevention, not
mitigation. There will be a traffic problem if the land is developed in any way. An
increase of traffic next to a neighbor park is not acceptable."
Foxfi re
"I have left a letter stating my opinions. In general, I don't understand why the City
is trying to give into the land owners when the proposed "zoning' is not appropriate
for the area. Putting C-1 on this land is wrong. Let's get an appropriate land use
plan."
Emerald Forest
"Very frustrating- just trying to put issue off until it gets worse instead of fixing it
now.
Bull-Bull-Bull, change land to residential and end this."
Woodcreek
"I appreciate the decrease in acceptable VPD thresholds. The 5000VPD on our street
is not acceptable. 2000VPDon Stonebrook (north of Woodcreek) is acceptable.
• Development streets with access only to the bypass access road is a good idea."
Anonymous
"The ideas and concepts proposed were vague and poorly defined. The idea that the
HOA have control through voting is an illusion. Arbitrary thresholds were set to be
followed by an illusionary plan for mediation. It is just a bunch of meetings with no
obvious solution. The obvious solution, atwo-way frontage road, is not allowed.
The mitigation solutions need to be specified so there is a plan for implementing
some mitigation protocols when needed, not a whole drawn out process to find a
solution after the problem is a crisis."
Sandstone
"The proposed plan will result in greatly increased neighborhood traffic. It will
seriously harm our neighborhoods and needs to be rejected outright. It should be
rejected each time it is proposed until it is clear that no harm to the neighbors will
occur. Just say no! Mitigation is not the solution; prevention of harm is the way to
go.
Woodcreek
"The best "traffic mitigation plan" is a land use plan that does not create a traffic
problem. The proposed land use will create another Rock Prairie/ Longmire problem
next door to neighborhoods. The proposed plan of revised land use goes too far
against the interests of these neighborhoods.'
Woodcreek
• "Offset Lakeway and Stonebridge; with the offset to go through the future "Wal-
Mart," take that prop[erty] as eminent domain.
Rock Prairie: current road one way going west. Graham, extend bridge across
• bypass one way east. Protect pines at Rock Prairie SE between these two roads and
make [a] park at intersection. Environmental Impact Report of Wal-Mart on
"Bentelope Refuge."
Emerald Forest
"The traffic mitigation process is a band-aid! The traffic problem needs to be solved
(including the funding) as a package deal with the approval of the proposed land use
change.
Foxfire
"Very disappointed- was expecting a proposed plan, what we were presented was
what we already knew, and a mitigation plan that will end the same as Munson."
Foxfire
"Traffic calming is not acceptable-traffic stopping is what is needed; Foxfire can not
stand the amount of increase you deem acceptable. AMS will be part of the problem.
Any development on Bird Pond or S Rock Prairie will bring traffic along AMS-Foxfire
[and] Stonebrook to avoid the Rock Prairie highway intersection. Put a gate between
Foxfire and Stonebrook that will prevent a problem [from] ever appearing. No one
will be more upset about the inconvenience than the traffic increase.'
Woodcreek
"AMS road needs to be built!
Stonebridge
"Is there any real possibility that any significant mitigation in the 2006 Mitigation
• Plan (Process) can actually be carried out in any significant time period, say 5 years?
Any traffic survey must include the "Big Box" [Wal-Mart] to truly show immediate
future impact of traffic."
*the brackets around "Wal-Mart" were in the original comment.
Foxfire
"Loss of habitat not addressed at all, already a travesty. Foxfire traffic has increased
already, how are traffic thresholds lowered, especially Foxfire? Try city planning
rather than city reaction. I don't believe the Foxfire/Stonebrook predictions; AMS
road will increase because it will make an easier cut through."
Stonebrook
"We sold one home on the corner of Munson and Francis 8 years ago due to over
7000 car a day traffic that was noisy and made it dangerous to go [off of] to our
home, or have our grandchildren visit us. We built in Woodcreek and are sick about
what we feel we are to deal with again."
Foxfire
'Informative "process;" need a "plan" to avoid an increase in traffic. Build the AMS
road! I am concerned about more than just the next "ten years.' What about next
twenty years? I moved from Glade and expected a better neighborhood experience
in this part of College Station. College Station needs to value neighborhoods and
move mountains to protect them. I want College Station to be special- not an
"accidental" city.
•
Rezoning Mistory in the Sebesta/Woodcreek Area
U
•
•
proximity to neighborhoods.
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
CASE (94-112)
REQUEST: 15 acres along frontage road at
the corner of Sebesta & Highway 6 to C-1
General Commercial for the development of
Douglass Nissan.
STAFF: Recommended approval of the
request.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION:
Unanimously recommended approval with
the provision that special attention be given
to the "step down" zoning approach on the
remainder of the area, and buffering of the
existing single family development.
CITY COUNCIL: Denied the request
because of citizen concerns of traffic and
future zonings in the area.
~y C-1
a
~' ~
~~~
CASE (94-119)
REQUEST: C-1 General Commercial and C-
3Light Commercial along the bypass, R-4
Low Density Apartment adjacent to the
Ledbetter property, R-3 Townhomes
adjacent to the north side of Brookwater
Circle, and A-P Administrative Professional
to the west of Brookwater Circle.
STAFF: recommended approval of the
request.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION:
P&Z recommended denial the request.
CITY COUNCIL POLICIES SUB-
• COMMITTEE: The applicants revised the
rezoning request after recommendation by
the City Council Policies Subcommittee to
show C-1 General Commercial only at the
corner of Sebesta and the Bypass, C-B
Commercial Business along the bypass, C-3
Light Commercial along the bypass to the
west of the proposed A-P, A-P Administrative
Professional to the west of Brookwater Circle,
R-3 Townhomes to the north of Brookwater
Circle, and A-0 Agricultural Open between the
commercial zonings and the Ledbetter
property.
•
•
CITY COUNCIL: City Council denied the
rezoning request as amended because of
citizen concerns regarding traffic flow and
step down zoning.
CASE (95-106)
REQUEST: 70 acres. C-1 General
Commercial along the bypass, A-P
Administrative professional as a buffer around
Brookwater Circle, R-1 Single Family between
the proposed C-1 and the vacant western
tract, and A-O Agricultural Open as a buffer
between Brookwater Circle and the R-1
proposal.
STAFF: Recommended approval with buffers
between commercial and residential property,
and limited access to Sebesta.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION:
Recommended denial of the request due to
citizen concerns of traffic and land use
adjacencies.
c-~
~~ c-s
..
~~~
CITY COUNCIL: The applicant withdrew the request prior to City Council.
•
C7
•
CASE (96-100)
REQUEST: M-1 Light Industrial for the Texas
Digital property.
STAFF: Staff recommended approval.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION:
Recommended approval with the condition
that deed restrictions be filed and that staff
initiate rezoning to R&D Research &
Development when district was created.
CITY COUNCIL: Approved with condition
that deed restrictions be filed and that staff
initiate rezoning to R&D Research &
Development when district was created.
Deed Restrictions were never filed, so the
property was never officially zoned M-1.
CASE (96-106)
REQUEST: City initiated rezoning of Texas
Digital property to R&D Research &
Development.
STAFF: Recommended approval.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSSON:
Recommended approval.
CITY COUNCIL: Approved.
~a
v.
~~
~ ~~
~~~
• Meeting with The East Bypass Development Group
and Adjacent Homeowner's Associations
Tuesday, June 27, 1995
7:00 - 9:00 PM
College Station City Hall
The purpose of this meeting was to initiate a dialogue between the owners of the property on the
northeast corner of Sebesta Road and the East Bypass and the representatives of the residential
subdivisions located adjacent to the property. Another purpose of the meeting was to get all
parties to agree on the key issues that should be considered in the development of this property.
The meeting was facilitated by City Council Member Nancy Crouch, representatives from the
Emerald Forest, Foxfire, Stonebridge, Shadowcrest and Amberlake neighborhoods and
representatives of the owners of the subject property participated in the meeting. A complete list
of the participants can be found attached to this document.
The group identified 15 issues that should be addressed when the property is developed. These
issues were narrowed by group consensus to the five (5) most important issues. The five most
important issues are:
• 1. The property should be developed according to the planned balance of land uses
that will be reflected in the Comprehensive Plan being prepared by HOK.
2. The interests of all citizens of the City should be considered when this property is
developed.
The property should be developed to reduce the effect of pollution on adjacent
properties. This pollution includes lightlglare, air pollution and noise pollution.
4. The ultimate use of the property should preserve the property values of the
adjacent residential areas.
The development of the property should be sympathetic to the traffic impacts on
surrounding areas. These traffic impacts can include:
a. The time the traffic visits the site;
b. The amount of traffic (density) attracted to the site;
c. The type of traffic (criminal activity, teenagers); and
d. The frequency of the traffic.
C7
• The participants also listed the land uses that would be acceptable and unacceptable on the site.
The acceptable uses included:
1. The land uses should reflect the uses listed in the HOK Plan.
2. Planned Unit Development (PUD) with patio homes or single-family
townhQmes
3. M-1 Light Manufacturing
4. Government Uses
5. Churches
6. Service uses
a. daycare
b. dry cleaner
c. video store
d. pharmacy
e. quality restaurant
7. Light Retail
8. Retirement housing
9. Professional offices
The following uses were suggested to be unacceptable at this location:
1. -Automotive body shop ~-
• 2. Apartments
3. Large retail (such as a Wal-Mart or Office Depot)
4. Auto dealers
5. Oil field supply/pipe laydown yard
6. Night Club
7. Service Station
The group agreed that the meeting was constructive and worthwhile. The group agreed to meet
again once the HOK Plan has been presented which is currently scheduled to occur in mid to late
August.
C7
JAN. 19. 1996 2:54PM
FROM MUNSCH PHONE Np. 1214E5575E4
• .
DRAFT
January /9,19f6
Meeting with Bob Bower
' and East Bypass Area
Property Owners and Homeowner's Associations
Tuesday, January 16, 1996
?:30.10:00 PM
Texas Digital Systems' Offices
The purpose of this meeting was to allow Bob Bower to present his proposal for a new
headquarters for Texas Digital Systems, Inc., on a 34-acre parcel east of the East Bypass and
south of Sebesta Road, to the surrounding property owners and Homeowner's Associations.
The meeting was facilitated by City Council Member Nancy Crouch, represeatadves from the
Woodcreek, Emerald Forest, Foxfire, Stonebrid~ge, Shadowcrest and Amberlake neighborhoods
and representatives of the owners of the subject property participated in the meeting. Jane Kee,
the City Planner for College Station~nd two staff platulers also attended this meeting. A complete
list of the participants can be found attached to this document.
• The meeti be an with Council Member Crouch setti the a ends
ng g ~g g and ground rules for the
current meeting and by Ms. Crouch reviewing the outcomes of the f rst meeting with the
neighborhood representatives, which was held in June of 1995. In the previous meeting, the
neighborhood representatives determined that the following uses were acceptable on the subject
parcel:
1. The land uses should reflect the uses listed in the HOK Plan.
Z. Planned Unit Development (PUD) with patio homes or single-family
townhomes ~
3. ~/M-1 Light Manufacturing
4. Govercunent Uses cup ,
5. Churches t.uP
6. Service uses
a. daycare cc~
b. dry cleaner
c. video store
d. pharmacy
e. quality restaurant
7. ~.ight Retail ~
8. Retirement housing ~~
9. /Profcssional offices
• The rou also reached consensus that the followin uses were una table at thi
g P $ ccep s location:
JHN, ly. 17~Jb ~:55PM P 6
MUNSCH PHONE N0. 12146557564
•
DRAFT
January ti,14iA
1. Automotive body shop
2. Apartments
3. Large ~ retail (such as a Wal-Mart or Office Depot)
4. Auto dealers
S. Oil field supply/pipe laydown yazd
6. Night Club
7. Service Station
The meeting was then turned over to Bill Dahlstrom who discussed that a rezoning request has
been filed for the property and that time is of the essence for getting this project under way. Mr.
Bob Bower then explained to the group what Texas Digital Systems ("TDS°) did and provided
a brief description of the history of the company and a summary of the products the Company
designs and assembles. The participants were then given a tour of the existing facilities.
Once the tour was completed, Mr. Bower's architect. Bill Scatnardo, showed the participants a
model of the proposed technology park and renderings of what TDS' new buildings would look
like. The participants were invited to ask questions about the proposed project. Mr. Bower then
• initiated a discussion with the property owners' regarding the deed restrictions he was willing to
place on the property. The proposed deed restrictions would limit permitted uses and establish
azchitectural and operational requirements. Mr. Bower also promised to keep a significant "no-
build" azea between his proposed project and the homes that back up to this project. Mr. Bower
agreed to sell a portion of the no-build arcs to the adjacent property owners if there is interest in
the proposal and if the property owner agreed to erect a fence between the two uses.
Council member Crouch then opened the discussion on the merits of~ the proposed project.
Generally. everyone was supportive of the project itself, but there was agreement that the
residential property owners did not trust the City's development system w guarantee that the
project would be built as promised, if at all. Mr. Martyrs expressed hls opinion that no rezoning
should be approved before the Comprehensive Plan, currently being prepared by HOK, was
adopted and the new Mixed-Use zonittg classification was developed.
Other issues that the surrounding property owners had concerns about included:
1. Who was going to guarantee that the offered deed restrictions would be enforced?
Would the City be responsible for the enforcement, or would the property owner
be responsible?
Z. The traffic circulation issues in the area must be addressed. It was suggested that
the Technology Park construct an additional access point from the By pass service
• road, which would be in addition to the access point from Sebesta Road. There
was also a discussion of techniques to "calm" the cut-through trafftc that residents
FROM MUNSCH
JHN. 1`J. 1`Jyb ~: SS
PHONE N0. : 1214E5575E4
•
DRAFT
January 1f,190Q
of Emerald Forest are now experiencing.
3. There was concern about the development of the front half of the property. This
property is not part of the current rezoning request or development plan. It was
suggested that the development of the back part of the property would set the
"tone" for the development of the front part.
4. There was also a concern that this rezoting would set precedence for the remainder
of the property along the By-pass.
S. Questions as to the definition of "mixed-use" development were also raised. The
definition of mixed-use that was presented by HOK was read to the audience.
6. One member of the audience wanted to know if the use of the project would be
environmentally friendly and if thee would be toxic chemicals used on the site.
Mr. Bower told her that no toxic chemicals would be used in this location.
7. Finally, the audience questioned whether any agreement reached would be
• enforceable in the future.
When askod what they Liked about the project, the audience stressed that they liked the proposed
plan and this plan was much better than any other development proposal that has been presented
for this property. There was a consensus that high technology use was acceptable for this
property. and that Mr. Bower ran a business that was responsible and carol about the community.
Finally, the audience hoped that the quality of the proposed plan would set the tone for quality
development for the front parcel and for other properties along the Bypass.
The audience requested that the deed restrictions be available for review prior to the rezoning
hearing. Mr. Bower assured everyone that tech participant will be sent a copy of the proposed
deed restrictions prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing.
The neighboring property owners suggested that they could support the proposed plan if the
following conditions could be met:
1. That enforceable deed restrictions were prepared and recorded with the County
Decd Records.
2. The existing traffic problems should be addressed,
3. The owner agrees not to oppose a City inidated rezoning of the groperty if the
. proposed plan ise¢egun within a specified period of time.
._ ~~ ..
JAN. 19. 1996 2:56PM P10
: MUNSCH PHONE NQ. : 12140557504
C~
DRAFT
Janusry t!, t!!6
4. The "no-build" area must be maintained by all future owners of lots within the
technology park.
The final conclusion was that the proposed plan was good, but the neighboring property owners
distrust the rezoning and development process.
P:\RF,~1L130Z1111RESULTSZ.DOC
1 rb 1/18/96
•
C,
T R A F F 1 C I M P A C T S T U D Y
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
College Station, Texas
Prepared By
The City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842
(979) 764-3570
FINAL REPORT -REVISED
MAY 2006
•
"""~4
GC7Y CIF 1.0I.C.F:C;Ci S"I'A'C'lC)N
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Impact Study
•
C,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................ii
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................................. ..ii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ ..ii
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ ..1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................................ ..2
Thoroughfare Plan ....................................................................................................................................... ..2
Existing Traffic Operations ......................................................................................................................... ..3
PROJECT TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................... ..4
Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................ ..4
Trip Distribution .......................................................................................................................................... ..9
Traffic Assignment ...................................................................................................................................... ..9
FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 10
Unspecified Development Traffic Growth ............................................................................................... 10
Total Traffic Assignment ............................................................................................................................ 10
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Land Uses ...................................................................................................................................................... 11
Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................................................ 11
Cut-Through Traffic .................................................................................................................................... 11
Truck Traffic ................................................................................................................................................. 12
Impacts of Adjacent Retail Development ................................................................................................. 13
Active Transportation ................................................................................................................................. 13
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................. 15
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 -Thoroughfare Design Criteria
Table 2 -Estimated Traffic Generation -Existing Land Use Plan
Table 3 -Estimated Truck Traffic Generation -Existing Land Use Plan
Table 4 -Estimated Traffic Generation -Proposed Land Use Plan
Table 5 -Estimated Truck Traffic Generation -Proposed Land Use Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 -Existing Land Use Plan
Figure 2 -Proposed Land Use Plan
Figure 3 -Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 4 -Existing Traffic Volumes - 2005
Figure 5 -Trip Distribution
Figure 6 -Inbound Trip Distribution
Figure 7 -Outbound Trip Distribution
Figure 8E -Existing Land Use Plan -Project Traffic Volumes
Figure 8P -Proposed Land Use Plan -Project Traffic Volumes
Figure 9 -Background Traffic Volumes - 2015
Figure 10E -Existing Land Use Plan -Total Traffic Volumes
Figure 10P -Proposed Land Use Plan -Total Traffic Volumes
• Final Report -Revised
May 2006
Page i
SEBESTA iIA.DOC
Crr~r OF CQI.LEG[s $'rA CYAN
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
• Traffic Impact Study
•
/ 1
~J
INTRODUCTION
This traffic impact study was conducted in conjunction with the consideration of a comprehen-
sive plan amendment for the property generally surrounded by Emerald Parkway to the north,
Woodcreek Drive to the south, State Highway 6 (SH 6) to the west, and several residential sub-
divisions to the east. These subdivisions include Emerald Forest, Woodcreek, and Foxfire.
The subject property for this project includes about 125 acres. The existing land use plan (Figure
1) shows a mix of land uses in this area including retail, industrial research and development,
and single-family residential (medium density).
The proposed land use plan (Figure 2) is similar to the existing plan in that similar proportions
of retail and industrial research and development land uses are shown, except in different loca-
tions. In addition, the area that was included as single family residential on the existing plan is
shown as planned development on the proposed plan.
A neighborhood meeting was held on May 10, 2005 to discuss the comprehensive plan amend-
ment with the surrounding neighborhoods. During the meeting, the property owners' ex-
pressed concerns about the compatibility of the proposed land uses and the nearby neighbor-
hoods. One of the most significant concerns dealt with traffic that could result from potential
developments. The city agreed to conduct a traffic impact study to quantify potential traffic
loads that could be expected by the full development of property in the area.
The scope of this study includes evaluating traffic scenarios for the existing and proposed land
use plans, as well as making recommendations on how resulting traffic concerns can be miti-
gated. Because specific uses have not been identified for these tracts, the study will be macro-
scopic in nature with the analysis focusing on anticipated volumes for the subject roadways.
This study has been a joint effort between the City of College Station, representatives of the ef-
fected homeowner associations (with transportation planning and engineering expertise), as
well as representatives of the comprehensive plan amendment applicant.
Final Report -Revised
May 2006
Page 1 of 16
SEBESTA 71A.DOC
C.il'Y of COLLEGE 5'tAr1oN
•
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
C
it
i Collectors Arterial
r
er
a Minor Ma'or Minor Ma'or
Pavement Width feet 38 54 70 or 76 90
Traffic Lanes 2 or 3 3 or 4 4 or 5 6
Parkin ermitted none none None
Sidewalks both sides both sides both sides both sides
Desi n S eed m h 30 35 40 45
Volume Ran e v d 2 000 - 5 000 5 000 - 10 000 10 000 - 25 000 20 000 - 50 000
Source: City of College Station Street Design Guidelines, August 2005.
Existing Thoroughfares
Earl Rudder Freeway (State Highway 6~ is a freeway with frontage roads that runs north-south
through Brazos County and forms the west boundary of the study area. In the site vicinity, the
roadway includes four freeway lanes with two-lane one-way frontage roads on either side. The
main lanes have a posted speed limit of 70 mph while the frontage roads are posted at 55 mph.
Emerald Parkway is an east-west minor collector that is the primary entrance into the Emerald
Forest neighborhood and the north boundary of the study area. The intersection of SH 6 and
Emerald Parkway consists of a diamond interchange with designated U-turn lanes for SH 6 traf-
fic. Between SH 6 and the neighborhood, Emerald Parkway consists of four travel lanes, a center
two-way left turn lane, and sidewalks. From the neighborhood to the east end of the roadway, it
consists of two travel lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks. The posted speed limit along Emerald
Parkway is 35 mph.
Rock Prairie Road, which is an arterial roadway running east-west, forms the south boundary of
the study area. SH 6 and Rock Prairie Road intersect at a diamond interchange. East of SH 6,
this roadway is classified as a minor arterial. The cross-section currently includes one lane in
each direction. A roadway widening project, that is currently under design, will provide four
travel lanes with sidewalks and bike lanes. The posted speed along Rock Prairie Road is 45
mph.
Final Report -Revised
May 2006
Page 2 of 16
SEBESTA TIA.DOC
CI"I`Y (7F CnI.LI:GE S'rnt`IOty
•
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Impact Study
Sebesta Road is an east-west minor collector that runs through the center of the tracts where the
land use changes are proposed. This roadway forms the boundary between the Emerald Forest
subdivision (to the north) and the Foxfire subdivision (to the south). Traffic on Sebesta Road is
stop-controlled at its intersection with the SH 6 East Frontage Road. The cross-section of this
roadway consists of two travel lanes, bike lanes, and sidewalks. The posted speed along Sebesta
Road is 35 mph.
Woodcreek Drive is a minor collector that runs east-west and is the primary entry into the
Woodcreek subdivision. Traffic on this roadway is stop-controlled at its intersection with the
SH 6 East Frontage Road. The cross-section of this roadway consists of two travel lanes and
sidewalks. The posted speed along Woodcreek Drive is 35 mph.
Foxfire Drive /Stonebrook Drive is a minor collector that runs north-south through the subject
area connecting the Emerald Forest subdivision on the north with the Foxfire and Woodcreek
subdivisions on the south. Traffic along this roadway must stop at two-way stop controlled in-
tersections at Sebesta Road, Woodcreek Drive, and Rock Prairie Road. In addition, northbound
traffic must stop on Stonebrook Drive where it intersects Foxfire Drive. The portion of the
roadway through the Foxfire subdivision (Foxfire Drive) is constructed as a rural two-lane road
with open ditches and no sidewalks. The remaining portion of the roadway within the Wood-
creek subdivision (Stonebrook Drive) includes two travel lanes and a sidewalk along the west
side of the roadway. The posted speed limit along this roadway is 30 mph.
Sandstone Drive is a minor collector that connects Emerald Parkway to Sebesta Road. Sebesta is
currently unmarked, but has the roadway width to accommodate two travel lanes with on-
street parking. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. The posted speed along
this roadway is 35 mph.
Proposed Thoroughfares
The only unconstructed thoroughfare in the study area consists of a minor collector connecting
Emerald Parkway and Sebesta Road. For the purposes of this study, this roadway will be re-
ferred to as AMS Road.
Existing Traffic Operations
Existing traffic volumes for each thoroughfare in the subject area is shown in Figure 4. Gener-
ally, the volumes on each of these roadways is considered low based on the volume range as
shown in Table 1.
Due to the SH 6 East Frontage Road being one-way northbound and the SH 6 /Rock Prairie
Road interchange being congested and out of the way, a significant number of residents from
the Woodcreek and Foxfire subdivisions use Sandstone Drive as a short-cut on return trips to
home. There are only about 350 daily northbound trips as shown in Figure 4. Based on this, it is
estimated that about 350 daily southbound trips use Sandstone Drive for a non short-cut func-
Final Report -Revised
May 2006
Page 3 of 16
SEBESTA TIA.DOC
..~
C.11'Y C)F CQT_tF..GE S'F`A1"(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 (TTE 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.
s Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation: An Information Report, Sixth Edition, Washington
DC, 1997.
Final Report -Revised .,,~
• May 2006
Page 4 of 16
SEBESTA TIA.DOC
Ca`C~ or Cos.t>;c;e SrnrCOr~
•
~~
~ J
r ~
U
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
Land Use Units ~°Ily 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°h 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 -Revised
May 2006
Page 5 of 16
SEBESTA TIA.DOC
'~'"~
CITY OF Co1.LECiE S'i'A'C1UN
•
•
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Impact Study
Table 3
Estimated Truck Traffic Generation -Existing Land Use Plan
Sebesta Road Comprehensive Plan
Traffic Im act Stud
Land Use Units Rate Trips Per Day
1,000 s tri s/1,000 s v d
Light Industrial' 550 3.1 1,700
Shopping Center 180 2.0 360
Total 2,060
Source: ITE's Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition, June 2004, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC.
1. Square footage for light industrial use was back calculated using Trip Generation Report assuming that the trips per day was
given.
Proposed Land Use Plan
The Proposed Land Use Plan, as shown in Figure 3, includes the following land uses: Industrial
Research and Development, Institutional, Office, Retail Regional, and Planned Development.
Industrial Research and Development
The area shown as Industrial R&D consists of 37 acres of undeveloped land. It is assumed that
this area will develop as a General Light Industrial use which is consistent with ITE's land use
code 110.
Institutional
The tract shown as Institutional is currently developing as Our Savior s Lutheran Church. The
ultimate buildout of this facility will be a 16,000 sf church, which is consistent with 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 -Revised
May 2006
Page b of 16
SEBESTA TIA.DOC
CITY CAF COI:LF.CiE S'i'AT'(ON
•
.7
•
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Impact Study
(ITE land use code 831). Recent conversations between the property owner and homeowner as-
sociation representatives include a provision for a maximum tenant space size of 75,000 sf. This
would remove the opportunity for most supermarkets wholesale markets, and discount clubs.
Staff assumed that 200,000 sf of shopping center could develop on this site with 40,000 sf of
quality restaurants. It should also be noted that because some trips patronize both uses, a pass
by capture has been applied.
Planned Development
The tract shown as planned development consists of about 38 acres of undeveloped land. It is
expected that this property will develop with a mix of different uses in a pedestrian friendly
environment. Expected uses include a 20,000 sf church (ITE land use code 560), 50,000 sf of of-
fice (ITE land use code 710), and 150 units of single family medium and high density residential
(ITE land use code 210). Because some of the shopping center trips will also likely patronize
other uses, a pass by capture has been applied. Additionally, because the type of development
should develop as a pedestrian friendly town center with a mix of uses where individuals can
live, work, shop, and recreate, a trip reduction has been applied to the residential and office
trips.
Final Repoli -Revised
Moy 2006
Page 7 of 16
SEBESTA TIADOC
Cf'T'Y CAF COLLEGE S'rACi~N
•
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Impact Study
Trig Generation Summarl/
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.
Table 4
Estimated Traffic Generation -Proposed Land Use Plan
Sebesta Road Comprehensive Plan
Traffic Im act Stud
Land Use Units Daily Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour
Trips Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Industrial Research and Development
General Light Industrial 37 2,950 520 100 620 70 500 570
Insttutionnl-
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
Tota12 2,190 125 85 210 110 160 270
Total -All Tracts
Grand Total 17,695 605 250 855 765 1,065 1,830
Final Repoli -Revised
• May 2006 +~`
Page 8 of 16
SEBESTA TIA.000
~11"Y C)F CO1.LIiC;E S'I"A'1"lC>N
•
C7
r~
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 sf 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 indusiriol use was back calculated using Trip Generation Report assuming that the trips per day was
given.
Trip Distribution
To estimate vehicle trip distribution for trips with origins and destinations outside of the study
area, the future residential buildout within the proposed development's service area was con-
sidered. Different segments within the service area were assigned to primary thoroughfares that
would be used to travel to/from the site. The trip distribution percentages are shown in Figure
5.
Traffic Assignment
To determine potential routes that drivers would use to enter/exit the proposed development,
possible routes were selected and driven. The likelihood that each route would be used was
based on travel times. Although the route outside of the neighborhood was usually significantly
shorter than the route through the neighborhood, it is expected that some drivers will drive
through the neighborhood as it may be perceived to be shorter or more scenic. For this reason, it
was assumed that some traffic will drive through the neighborhood regardless of quickest
route. Figures 6 and 7 show how these trips into and out of the site were assigned. Figures 8E
and 8P show the proposed development traffic for the existing and proposed land use plans,
respectively.
Final Report -Revised
May 2006
Page 9 of 16
SEBESTA TIA.000
~~
CITY C)F COI_LF.C;E S"I'A770N
•
r~
~ J
C7
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 -Revised
May 2006
Page 10 of 16
SEBESTA T1A.DOC
CFt \ OF CC)t-LEGS S'l'tl"I"tC)N
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
• Traffic Impact Study
CONCLUSIONS
Land Uses
When conducting a traffic impact study, it is standard to analyze the transportation system un-
der the highest traffic scenario that could develop. In studies where the specific uses are known,
the range of possible traffic loads is narrow. In the case of this study, the specific uses were not
known and many assumptions had to be made. For example, a large variety of uses could be
utilized within the retail regional land use. Since the highest traffic potential scenario was con-
sidered, shopping center and restaurant uses were assumed.
The only way that the highest traffic scenario would become reality is if the market demands it.
The subject property has very good visibility, but access to the property is challenged because of
the one-way frontage road and location of the entrance and exit ramps that serve it. Most likely,
the market would not demand an intense density of high traffic generating uses such as shop-
ping centers and restaurants. Regardless, the intent of this study is to look at how the surround-
ing transportation system would operate under the highest traffic scenario. When reviewing the
following conclusions, it is important to be mindful that the traffic scenario studied is the high-
estpotential and may not be realistic depending on the market.
Traffic Volumes
• By comparing the traffic volumes resulting from the buildout of the existing and proposed land
use plans, it is concluded that although the proposed land use plan scenario results in slightly
higher traffic volumes, the overall difference is not significant. Therefore, the proposed land use
scenario will not result in a more adverse traffic situation than the existing land use scenario.
By comparing each of the buildout traffic volumes (i.e., existing and proposed land use plans) to
the background traffic volumes, it is concluded that the buildout of the land use plan will result
in a significant increase in traffic. In almost all cases, the resulting traffic volumes are within the
planned volume range for each thoroughfare classification, as shown in Table 1. The two cases
where expected traffic volumes are higher than the planned volume range include Emerald
Parkway and Sebesta Road between Foxfire Drive and the SH 6 East Frontage Road. Although
the planned volume range is exceeded in each of these cases, each roadway section should be
able to handle the traffic without negative consequences. Emerald Parkway, which is expected
to carry up to 7,400 vpd, was designed and built as a major collector and should carry up to
10,000 vpd. Although Sebesta Road is expected to carry up to 7,000 vpd, the roadway does not
penetrate a neighborhood and will have a minimal number or driveways which should im-
prove traffic conditions.
Cut-Through Traffic
One of the primary concerns from the neighboring communities was the introduction of cut-
through traffic with the development of the subject tracts. After completing the study, two po-
tential cut-through routes were identified. The first route employs Sandstone Drive to travel
Final Report -Revised .,~
May 2006
Page 11 of 16
SEBE5TA TIA.DOC
CITY t)F CC)LLEGE S'rariOtJ
•
•
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 alternative is that anyone from the Woodcreek or Foxfire neighborhoods
leaving the proposed development desiring to go home would have to travel a significant dis-
tance out of the way to get back home. Additionally, if the partial closure is not designed cor-
rectly, drivers will find a way to drive around the traffic calming device.
Truck Traffic
One aspect that should be considered when evaluating different land use categories is the po-
tential for truck traffic that each use will generate. From reviewing Tables 3 and 5, it could be
concluded that the existing land use scenario will generate more truck traffic than the proposed
land use scenario because of a larger industrial component. It should be noted that these calcu-
lations were made using several assumptions on specific uses and intensity, and the real differ-
ence may be minimal. In either case, the larger issue is which roadways will trucks use to travel
to and from the site. Based on roadway function, these trips should take place on the arterial
system, including Rock Prairie Road and the SH 6 frontage roads. Because these roadways are
Final Report -Revised
May 2006
Page 12 of 16
SEBESTA TIA.DOC
C,I1'1 C)F COLLECiF.. 5'1'A7'ION
•
C7
C7
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Impact Study
generally easier to navigate and faster to travel on, trucks using neighborhood streets may not
be a problem.
Impacts of Adjacent Retail Development
Another primary concern of the neighborhood is the impact that retail development outside the
study area will have on the Woodcreek and Foxfire neighborhoods. The concern is specifically
directed toward the southeast corner of the SH 6 /Rock Prairie Road interchange. Based on the
current land use plan, when developed, this area will accommodate an extensive retail regional
development. The development of this area could have a variety of impacts on the study area.
The primary neighborhood concern is based on traffic that travels to one site and then cuts
through the neighborhood along Foxfire Drive /Stonebrook Drive to get to the other. Based on
the anticipated access that will exist for the larger area, it is likely that if traffic intended to shop
at both locations, they would go to the shopping center south of Rock Prairie Road first and to
the Sebesta Road area second.
Therefore, the primary traffic movement would be northbound. This traffic would have two
routes to use, including the SH 6 East Frontage Road and the Foxfire Drive /Stonebrook Drive
corridor. Based on travel times from the Rock Prairie Road /Stonebrook Drive intersection to
the subject tract, the route along the SH 6 East Frontage Road is quicker by a factor of two. This
is primarily based on a lower speed limit and two stop controlled intersections that must be
traversed when traveling along the Foxfire Drive /Stonebrook Drive corridor. It is still likely
that some traffic will perceive this route as being quicker because it appears to be more direct.
When the retail site south of Rock Prairie Road develops, a traffic impact study will be required.
This study will be based on specific uses that have been proposed for the development. The
City of College Station will require that a portion of this study will focus on impacts associated
with the interaction of traffic traveling between these two areas and potential techniques to
mitigate these impacts.
It should also be noted that the availability of this site with good visibility and good access will
have an impact on the uses and timing of development of the subject tract. First, if a high traffic
generating development had the alternative to locate at the site on Rock Prairie Road or Sebesta
Road, they would likely locate at the Rock Prairie Road site because of the superior access. With
this, if the subject tract were to develop in the short-term time frame, they would likely be uses
that do not require good access. If it did not develop in the short-term and retail sites with good
access were in short supply, the subject tract could develop as a higher traffic generating retail
site in a long-term scenario.
Active Transportation
In addition to the vehicular transportation issues that have already been addressed, a number of
issues dealing with bicycle and pedestrian transportation should also be considered.
Final Report -Revised
May 2006
Page 13 of 16
SEBESTA TIA.DOC
CfTY C)F COI.LEC,f: S'I'rl't'IL)N
•
C J
C~
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Impact Study
First, Foxfire Drive is built to a rural standard with surface drainage in ditches and no side-
walks. As traffic continues to grow in the area, as will occur with the development of the subject
tracts, accommodations for pedestrians should be considered.
Second, any proposed development within the study area should be designed and built with
the neighborhood in mind. This design should be pedestrian /bicycle friendly with accommo-
dations for bicyclists and pedestrians to travel to, from, and within the site. Many neighborhood
residents stated that, under the current design, it would be very difficult to travel to /from the
site by bicycle. This is specifically due to the lack of bike lanes between the neighborhood and
the site along Stonebrook Drive and Woodcreek Drive. The addition of bike lanes should be
considered on these roadways.
Lastly, there are currently no sidewalks along the Rock Prairie Road bridge across SH 6 and
along Rock Prairie Road east of SH 6 making it extremely unsafe to walk from the study area to
anywhere west of SH 6 and vice versa. The addition of sidewalks along this section of Rock
Prairie Road should be considered.
Final Report -Revised
May 2006
Page 14 of 16
SEBESTA TIA.DOC
Cil'Y OF COLLE,GF. S'[AFtC7N
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
• Traffic Impact Study
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above conclusions, the following recommendations are made:
1. Prior to the development of any high traffic generating uses in the Sebesta Road area, AMS
Road should be constructed to mitigate real cut-through traffic concerns by Emerald Forest
homeowners in the Sandstone Drive area. The City of College Station will include this road-
way project on the candidate list of projects to be considered for construction through the
capital improvement program.
2. A private street/ drive should be constructed through the non-residential development pro-
viding cross-access from Sebesta Road to the SH 6 East Frontage Road just north of Our Sav-
iour sLutheran Church.
3. As retail development occurs in this area, traffic volumes and speeds along Foxfire Drive /
Stonebrook Drive should be monitored. If traffic volumes and / or speeds become an issue
and the neighborhood is amenable, the City of College Station will consider this area for
traffic calming through the City's neighborhood traffic calming program.
4. As the area southeast of the SH 6 /Rock Prairie Road proceeds through the development
• process, a traffic impact study will be required. A part of this study should focus on poten-
tial traffic impacts and mitigation of these impacts between potential retail development in
the study area with the proposed development.
5. Pedestrian accommodations should be considered along Foxfire Drive to provide a safe
place for pedestrians to walk. Based on the City of College Station Code of Ordinances,
Chapter 3, Section F, the residents of Foxfire Drive where the sidewalk is desired, must peti-
tion to have the City construct the sidewalk.
6. Require that a note be placed on industrial, retail, and office site plans on the subject tracts
stating that delivery trips should not use Stonebrook Drive / Foxfire Drive or Woodcreek
Drive. If development related truck traffic through the neighborhood becomes an issue, this
will be a traffic calming consideration.
7. Upon development proposals of the subject tracts, the developer will be made aware that
the design of the development should employ a pedestrian friendly concept with bicycle
and pedestrian accommodations, as required by the City of College Station Unified Devel-
opment Ordinance.
8. The City of College Station should consider striping bike lanes along the Stonebrook Drive
and Woodcreek Drive corridors as is consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Final Report -Revised
• May 2006
Page 15 of 16
seeESr~ n~.ooc
C.lTY OF COT.LEGE S"I'A7'ION
•
•
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Impact Study
9. The City of College Station should work with the Texas Department of Transportation to
provide sidewalks along the Rock Prairie Road bridge over SH 6.
10. The City of College Station will construct sidewalks along Rock Prairie Road, east of SH 6,
with the upcoming construction project to widen Rock Prairie Road.
Final Repoli -Revised
May 2006
Page 16 of 16
SEBESTA TIA.DOC
CIl"Y C)F G'C)I_LF,GF. STACCON
r~
L
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Impact Study
FIGURES
Final Report -Revised
May 2006
SEBESTA TIA.DOC
~,I1"Y CAF C4L[,EGF. S'1'PiCION
• ~ 1
~' ~ k
1~'
•
r~
~ Y ,.,.rte fi"t .r;x .r ~t> > ~ _~k
~E, ~~ a ~y ~~± ` »!~,,.,'~.. ~ ~~ 'C X41 N
.,, ~`~ ~, O --
re ~ _ ~_ 'p C1 .O O <O rO
.~ .~;yt-2i"j'r'q'r ~~i~~~.a•`•.~a `1y? ''' ~.~j 47 ,'t.~ ~.~ j ~a, ~ ~ ~ ~ G 4 ~:'4'~.
~ ;' `~y ~* t~ l ~ ~~..
Fr , ,.
'r.. ; ;
y ~
i }
„ ~ -~ ~ ~.~
l._. A _1
hV
} ti {i
.. i '.~ ~L
~, ~~~ ;~:
., ~v ~:
'~~.
.~.
r ~~~
tt~~
~. ' (~
~~ Y~
~~
' ~h
r. 's ?l
~'
~„ . ~. ~..
a?'4 ~
:Y€ ~ i
w
},
n s ~ 'i
.~ \'
~'
-~:
~..;
. ~~;
t'7 .~
~i ai
`1 G
~~% ~~~g~
s~-
._
.7
•
tiw
~y~ ~10
7O,A /
h
Q
/(~~
~ ~~~ \
Z °s
~'
W
c
~G
Q
Z .
W I
~~
~ o
~
~~~
Z .
O.
W<
~'
:~
W
~
t1 Q
F ~"
.
0 ~
V; Z
d p
F ~~
to
- N
~' :W
W
~ ~~
~
.
W:
V'1 p•
~~
/~
25°~ p ono---~ ~Q96
1096. `~
~t
d 1096
~ u
'O
dA
/d .O
d' ~
~
~ d
~ 9af
W
~~ o
~°
h
.•. ~
~ E- 15% ~ ~ ~~.-
..
~--- l5% 20°r6
~~ 40%°
~.- 75%
SN b ~~~ ~~~
~ 6
~/
Z `
~
~
d
W
a~ -
yP
~~~o
L~1
~Q
W G _
~
.
-~,
~
~ N
'
.
Z
V a O i
~
~•- p
F~
~
~ vw
~~~~
~ ~~
'~-~
• ,~ u.~
~' "'
~
0 ~~ ~
w v ~~
v
0.
x-
c~'
o°
P
400
200 ~--
2,100 $00'
2,100. ''
O
a~
m
v
- 'O
O
O
~dA ~Op ~ ~p
~~~ ~~
~~ ~\
~ y \~
W o~.l °~~' `~ boo
°{
!~ _ O,LVU
~_
4" 'oos`s
W
~'
rrr
W 0
0. !
'N~
~~
Vdp
~~~
~ N
~~ ~ _~
µ. ~ ,
~`~p
~ h
SN°~~
~~
~
b
~
S'
~m
P
y
o
v
d _ H
c ~~
.a
~
~ G
~
~
~ - _
,~ O
,
~ . ' ~
~v „~ ~~
x.
~ .J
~3 ~ ~r
.~
'fin
~.
'.
i•
•
~°',o ~o°
ia~
~
Z
~~ ~~°~
t
0
Z
~ o
o~
M
CV
Z
~`
~ OOS
' W
~.~
~
ilk
1
~ ~
°a~~
~~
C). ~Z
v.
a
y~ 5
~Ir ^"` Q
*` ~
f w
III u W
'W ~
'~> .r ~
~'
~ ~
Y .
.
ta~M
_~
•ri
~ L ~+
~~~,
O I
O~_
~ l
~j
v ~•
a
~,
~
a w°
.~ ~ , ~
~~
- ~ J
a
.~
'o,
a`
,al
`~:.
a
~ o°
v
400
900
,. 2,200 900
o
• ~i4G_
a~,
•a.
0 _ a`
z ,~.
0
o _Q
0
N N
~.~~~
40~
~.~OQ
500 O
m'
b d
"yam
0
dA o0 3 0
ti
i o
0
~ c~
`~ o oo~ oo_
~p~ l c^
rW ,ad,
s
C °''
Q ~9af o °o
"~, °z oo
o° o Oo~ a,
• ~ ~"
N ~ ~ ~~. _.
Z s~'b
~.
w-
a a
W
~,. ~~
~/ o`'P H
W ,~~+ $ ~
> . ~~
hil °`
o . '""..
~ '-,
CZ yo :~`
4 ~w ~ o .~
m~
~.~ +. ~
Z > w-
~ aO ~
~~~ ~
W~~ x w"
~ . "" ~ . ~
~~ ~ ;a ~
r~f..v ~~
abc'
•~
•a
a.
x
~.
o° ~~
N N
1,500
600 5.000
F!" ~ ~ ~\ \
~~~~ ~~~~ 3y0
.O~ ! ,L01
O{~
Q a~~~ ~~
o
°o °o O~~r q0~0 OO l
_ ~ ~
6,200 ~ SN b EFR
~ ooh
~ _ F---- ~~`~
~b
S
~r -~
00£'£
':W'
~~
P
.rir
,`~+°y
~.
.,,
a
,
;~'
a
,x
o°
u~ °'
h
cv N
1,500
600 ~ 000
"""~
w 3,300 5,000°
2~~00 p
m
4~ v
yp ~~0 'O g
o ~
O
3 p ~ .
O
aid ~ ~ Oo 0~. ~ j
~ w ~~
a o
Z ~ °°~
o~
s
~, a9~~ ~O
• L~,1 0 ~_
0 0 ~o~_ ~~0 ~i_ ~r
c° ~' 9~ rr
~ .6,600 os~ SH b MFR
Z F--- ~'```~
~b
S
O. OOS
~~
arr Q' _
soh .,~
~~
~„ ° a
H
~,
~.h _~ d ~+~ ~ I
m ~, ;
~~ ~ ~
0
~ao Oy
_ ~.,_ v
~ ~
W ~ ~ ~ ai O !
a# . --~
~ ~ ~
W_~ 1
T R A F F I C M I T I G A T 1 0 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
May 2006
""~~
~11'Y c~r• COLLF:C=L" Sin rioN
•
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Mitigation Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ii
BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................................................1
PURPOSE STATEMENT ...........................................................................................................................1
TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN ...............................................................................................................1
Traffic Volume Thresholds ................................................................................................................... 2
Monitoring Process ................................................................................................................................ 2
Action Plan ..............................................................................................................................................3
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: LAND USE PLAN PROPOSAL
APPENDIX B: NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF GUIDANCE INVOLVING INDIVIDUAL STREET CHARAC-
TERISTICS
•
Final Plan
• May 2006
Page ii
SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC
CrlY OF COl.I.ECiE S't}YCit)N
r ~
L_J
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Mitigation Plan
BACKGROUND
In October 2005, the City of College Station completed a traffic impact study quantifying the
anticipated traffic impacts of a proposed land use change in the area generally surrounded by
Emerald Parkway to the north, Woodcreek Drive to the south, State Highway 6 (SH 6) to the
west, and several residential subdivisions to the east. These subdivisions include Emerald For-
est, Woodcreek, and Foxfire.
Following this study, representatives of the surrounding neighborhoods and the applicant of
the proposed land use change worked together to develop a land use plan that is agreeable to
each party. This plan is included as Appendix A: Land Use Plan Proposal. It should be noted
that the land uses agreed upon were similar and slightly less intense than those used in the traf-
fic impact study. One term of this agreement states that a traffic mitigation plan should be de-
veloped to "alleviate the high volume of cut-through traffic that will result on Emerald Park-
way, Sandstone Drive, Sebesta Road, Foxfire Drive and Stonebrook Drive."
PURPOSE STATEMENT
Due to the considerable amount of undeveloped non-residential land uses adjacent to the
Woodcreek, Foxfire and Emerald Forest neighborhoods, the potential for significant traffic in-
creases through these neighborhoods, and the lack of appropriate thoroughfares to accommo-
date this traffic, the City of College Station and these neighborhoods agree that a traffic mitiga-
tion plan is warranted to preserve neighborhood integrity.
• If proper land use and transportation planning were conducted prior to the initial development
of this area, a traffic mitigation plan would not be necessary. In the future, the City of College
Station and our citizens should require that adequate planning be conducted prior to any de-
velopment to ensure that situations such as this are avoided. Committing the necessary re-
sources for good short- and long-term planning will repay itself through great neighborhoods,
reduced congestion, and a higher overall quality of life.
TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN
The traffic mitigation plan, including a monitoring process and an action plan, was developed
as a collaborative effort between the City of College Station staff and neighborhood representa-
tives to reduce or eliminate the negative effects of cut-through traffic. It should be noted that
cut-through traffic is defined as vehicles driving through the neighborhood from one non-
residential use to another non-residential use. These negative effects typically include excessive
traffic volumes or speeds.
There is a variety of mitigation tools that can be used depending on the effect to be mitigated, as
well as the severity of the desired mitigation. For example, if the intent of mitigation is to lower
traffic speeds, a lane narrowing device (e.g., median, curb extensions) could be used. If the in-
tent of mitigation is to decrease traffic volume, more severe types of mitigation, such as a street
closure could be used. Although the purpose of the mitigation is to alter driving behavior of
drivers cutting through the neighborhood, the mitigation will also have a significant effect on
Final Plan ~t
May 2006
Page 1
SEBESTA MITIGATION. DOC
CITY ON COI.C.ECiE S'3'AI'lC:)N
•
•
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Mitigation Plan
local residents as they will have to deal with the mitigation on a daily basis. For this reason, the
negative effects on the neighborhood must be balanced with the positive effects of reducing
traffic volumes and/or speeds.
More information on potential traffic calming devices is included in Appendix B: Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Toolbox.
Traffic Volume Thresholds
In the development of this traffic mitigation plan, city staff and neighborhood representatives
reviewed each of the collectors in the study area to establish traffic volume thresholds. When
the traffic volume on any of these roadways exceeds the documented threshold, the traffic miti-
gation process will be initiated. The following thresholds were developed based on physical cri-
teria as shown in Appendix C: Summary of Guidance Involving Individual Street Characteris-
tics.
Traffic Volume Threshold Summary
Sebesta Road Comprehensive Plan
Traffic Miti ation Plan
St
t N Limits Acceptable Volume Range
ree
ame From To vehicles er da
Emerald Parkwa AMS Road Sandstone Drive 5,000
Sandstone Drive Emerald Parkwa Sebesta Road 2,000
Sebesta Road SH 6 EFR AMS Road 5,000
Sebesta Road AMS Road Sandstone Drive 3,000
Foxfire Drive Sebesta Road Stonebrook Drive 2,000
Stonebrook Drive Foxfire Drive Rock Prairie Road 3,000
Woodcreek Drive SH 6 EFR Stonebrook Drive 3,500
Monitoring Process
The City of College Station -Public Works Department will conduct traffic counts on each of the
following roadway segments on an annual basis or following development projects in the area
that significantly increase traffic.
• Sandstone Drive
• Sebesta Road (between SH 6 EFR and Foxfire Drive)
• Sebesta Road (between Foxfire Drive and Sandstone Drive)
• Foxfire Drive
• Stonebrook Drive
• Emerald Parkway (between proposed AMS Road and Sandstone Drive)
• Woodcreek Drive
The City will conduct an online neighborhood resident perception survey on an annual basis
timed with the traffic counts.
Final Plan
• May 2006
Page 2
SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC
Crrt or Co~.t_tic,r S'rArIUN
•
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Mitigation Plan
Action Plan
When any volume threshold is exceeded, a Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Committee
(NTMC) will be formed and will start meeting within three months of the traffic count.
The NTMC will be comprised of up to twelve (12) voting members as selected by city staff with
assistance from the neighborhood associations within the project area. Voting members must be
property owners living in the study area. Special consideration for selection will be given to
neighborhood representatives who served on the committee that drafted the traffic mitigation
plan. The members of the NTMC should represent the entire study area. The study area is
bound by SH 6 on the west, Rock Prairie Road on the south, Carter Creek on the east, and Bee
Creek on the north. No more than two (2) committee members may live on any one street
within the study area. City transportation planning and traffic engineering staff will act as facili-
tators for this committee.
Upon meeting, the NTMC will work to define the problem and identify potential solutions.
Traffic data and the neighborhood perception survey results may be used by the committee as
tools in defining the problem. If the NTMC agrees that the traffic volume threshold that was
exceeded was set too low, they may adjust the traffic volume thresholds and discontinue meet-
ing. The monitoring process would continue.
Any traffic mitigation solution except for a full street closure may be considered as long as it
• does not present an increased safety hazard and it complies with national traffic engineering
standards. Any mitigation solution where the cost exceeds $75,000 may be considered a capital
project and may have to be funded through this process. Some examples of possible solutions
are included as Appendix A -Neighborhood Traffic Calming Toolbox.
In the process of developing a traffic mitigation proposal, the NTMC may host an open house to
receive input from interested citizens within the study area prior to the development of a miti-
gation plan. Once the NTMC develops a proposed neighborhood traffic mitigation plan, they
may host a second open house to present the plan to the neighborhood. Following the devel-
opment of the mitigation plan, it is the NTMC property owners' responsibility, with help from
city staff, to market the plan to the neighborhoods. The property owners within the study area
will then vote to approve or disapprove the plan.
For the plan to be implemented, 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.
Final Plan ~
• May 2006
Page 3
SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC
Crrr QF Coz.t.N:c.r S'fAi'lON
•
•
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Mitigation Plan
As discussed in the purpose statement, successful implementation not only includes addressing
future traffic issues in the Sebesta area, but also making a commitment to long-range planning
in College Station. This commitment requires resources to assist staff in providing information
to appointed and elected officials. Providing the best information to these decision makers will
help them make decisions to reduce or eliminate future recurrences of similar problems
throughout the City.
Final Plan
• May 2006
Page 4
SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC
Crrr ok Coi.txc~ S'rA~riraN
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
• Traffic Mitigation Plan
APPENDICES
Final Plan
• May 2006
SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC
•
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Mitigation Plan
APPENDIX A:
LAND USE PLAN PROPOSAL
Final Plan
• May 2006
SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC
•
Comprehensive Plan amendment to change to Regional Retail and Administrative Professional
uses on the land use plan. Future rezoning of the land designated as Regional Retail
is contingent upon the creation of a new East Bypass Zoning District that is consistent with the uses
specified in the East Bypass Small Area Action Plan or by use of a PDD or its facsimile. In addition,
future development of the land designated as Regional Retail is incumbent on the concomitant
implementation of traffic mitigation measures to alleviate the high volume of cut-through traffic that will
result on Emerald Parkway, Sandstone Dr., Sebesta Rd., Foxfire Dr. and Stonbrook Dr.
At the same time A-P Office zoning will be requested for the property abutting the Lutheran Church up
to Technology Dr.
•
•
C,
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Mitigation Plan
APPENDIX B:
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX
Final Plan
• May 2006
SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC
•
APPENDIX B
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLBOX
r~
•
SPEED HUMP
IG
DESCRIPTION:
"~~
~~
- a
_,.
D ~~~~~~
-.iJ r~
Speed humps are raised sections of pavement across the travel way with curved transitions. These measures are 22
feet in length and approximately 3 to 4 inches high. The design consists of 6 feet transitions to a 10 feet flat surface.
The purpose of a speed hump is to reduce speeds by vertically deflecting- the wheels and frame of a vehicle. The
occupants experience an uncomfortable sensation if the vehicle travels at speeds greater than the design speed of the
speed hump.
ADVANTAGES:
• Reduces vehicle speed. More effective if used in a series at 300' to 500' spacing or in conjunction with other
traffic calming measures.
• Can reduce vehicular volumes.
• No restrictions to on-street parking.
• Requires minimum maintenance.
DISADVANTAGES:
• May divert traffic to parallel streets that do not have traffic calming measures.
• Increases emergency response times.
• Required signage may be considered unsightly.
COST:
• Low
7
• SPEED CUSHIONS
,~` i~ ,
~ ~ '~ t~
~ ~
.,.,,
a u
~ y...~,,
t + ~;.
DESCRIPTION:
Speed cushions consist of raised pavement of pavement raised 3-4 inches in height. The length of the cushion is a
minimum of 9 feet. The spaces between the cushions allow wider emergency vehicles to partially straddle the
measure.
ADVANTAGES:
• Reduces vehicle speed. More effective if used in a series at 300' to 500' spacing or in conjunction with other
traffic calming measures.
• • Can reduce vehicular volumes.
• No restrictions to on-street parking.
• Requires minimum maintenance.
• Less impact to emergency response times than speed humps.
DISADVANTAGES:
• May divert traffic to parallel streets that do not have traffic calming measures.
• Increases emergency response times.
COST:
• Moderate/ Expensive
•
8
•
RAISED CENTER MEDIAN
r ;~
.. ,,~, i
_ s
~ ------
I
r ~~~ ~~
~~ ~--=='
S. '. ~ ~
1
•
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
•
•
•
~J
TRAFFIC CIRCLE
IIl~Iil
~ _~ 0~
a
a
~ ~ r
w ~~ j
~~~~
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.
• Maintenance responsibility, if landscaped.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS:
• 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).
• 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
IO
• CHICANE
..
., ~ '
• ••
,,~"'-~
...
o° ~~
DESCRIPTION:
A chicane is a series of two or more staggered curb extensions on alternating sides of the roadway. They are
usually landscaped with ground cover, bushes and trees. Horizontal deflection encourages motorists to slow
• through chicane.
Small raised island may be added to the design. These islands between or aligned with the curb extensions
emphasizes the curvilinear alignment and prevent motorist from crossing the center line
ADVANTAGES:
• Reduces speed.
• Does not restrict access to residents.
• Minimal impact to emergency vehicles.
• Reduces crossing distance for pedestrians.
• Can be aesthetically pleasing, if landscaped.
DISADVANTAGES:
• Curbside parking must be prohibited.
• Maintenance responsibility, if landscaped.
• May have little or no impact on cut-through traffic.
COST:
• High
r~
~.
• 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
SEBESTA AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Traffic Mitigation Plan
APPENDIX C:
SUMMARY OF GUIDANCE INVOLVING INDIVIDUAL
STREET CHARACTERISTICS
Final Plan
• May 2006
SEBESTA MITIGATION.DOC
• CHOKERS, CURB EXTENSIONS, OR BULB-OUTS
DESCRIPTION:
Street physically narrowed to expand sidewalks and landscaped areas; possibly adding medians, on street parking,
• etc. These measures narrow the pavement by widening the sidewalk area at strategic locations. They provide
shorter pedestrian crossing distances and provide protection to the beginning of a parking lane. The driver also
senses the roadway narrowing when approaching one of these measures, which can result in speed reduction and a
sense that the driver is entering a residential area.
ADVANTAGES:
• Minor inconvenience to drivers
• Minimal inconveniences to local traffic
• Good for pedestrians due to shorter crossing distance
• Provides space for landscaping
• Slows traffic without seriously affecting emergency response time
• Effective when used in a series
• Single lane narrowing reduces vehicle speed and through traffic
DISADVANTAGES:
• Double lane narrowing not very effective at reduced speeds or diverting through traffic
• Only partially effective as a visual obstruction
• Unfriendly to cyclists unless designed to accommodate them
• Conflict between opposing drivers arriving simultaneously could create problems
COST:
• Medium to High
•
13
•
•
v °o o O N y N y ~fi ~
O pp L L ~ L
O
~. O
~ M
o O
O z ~
v ~ z y
~ ~ ~
O ~
N
O 0
~
In
a~
~ L
as
~ L
a~
N L
~
~
" --~ as
N as
N as
C~ ~ k ~ ~ O ~
O L ~
O L ~ ~
L
N
~ '~ w M N ~~ M~ ~
6~ ~ ~ O O N ~ N ~ O~
~'
3 ~ O
~ O
~ O L
~~ O L
~~ O L
~
~ ~ ~
~ C
C
~
~, ~ ~
~ ~
~
y ~
O
~
~
O
p ~
N ~
N ~
p
~
U ~
W
O
.--.
O
O ~
O L G~
O L G~
O L
M
'~
~ ~ M M M C N C C
, U ~
C ~" ~ ~ O ~ N C~ N~ ~
~
.~
O
~
O
N v
N v ~
~ v
V] M N M ~ N ~ -~
C
V
Z
~
O
Q ~
N C~ ~
N ~ ~
~--1 CAS
~ 'a' j ~
"O
' `~
a ~ tr ~ ' C pp MC ~
~
~
C ~
oz,
o
C
O a~
`= y a~
N y a~
y
O
~
W
3
~
~'
~
~
o°o ~
~ u y
~ u
e~
t
'" ~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
F'' -o °o
0
o
~ O
M
A
a~
Q c ~
M ~
.~ oQ
d ° °
°
d ~~ •~
~ ~ ~ ~
°D
~
'~.
~ o
~ a~ e
~; o,~-d
~ ~
~ o a~ ~?
U o c, ~
~ .
~
a O~-o
U ~ o
o ~ ~,
~ o
>
~~
~ .d
a~~~~ ~,
~> ~,
~,
~
o~o~o~ a~
~ ~
a> ~,~
U> a d~E-~> aF-~ aAU> aH ~~E-~>
•
.7
N
O
M
~ ~
00
z
~
~D
~
~
>
>
~.
O
3
0
~.
~
M
~
~
M
O
~
+
-
w
O M ~ N /^~ ~ ~ /`~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
w
3 ~
.~
w
b M ~ M z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.
w M ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ > > ~.
a
b
3 M ~ ~ z > > > > > ~.
w
z ^ N
a~ _
O
M pp
p O
v
~
O
b ~ 'C3
~~
b O~ N ~~ C
'U II
V V N `+~ N ^' O O
Q
v, pq
a~ `. ~ 'b y ~ ~
' ^ ~ 3 w ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ 3 ~ b `~ ~ ~
~ ~ x ~ ~
~
~
~
`C
~
~
~, 3
~
,
~ ;
~ a~
~
~
3
a~
~ ~,
~ ;,
a~
~ ~
a ri o
~`~ ~
as ~ A x~ ~ ~ ~-v
N
•
•
N
'~ °
_' ~ C
O
O
O ' ~
3
o
0
~ b
o
o
•--~ ~ U ' ~
~
o Q ,a
~ 5
~ ~
~ o ~
O ° ~ o ~
w
c _
~
N
a
~ 3
o ~
~
° ~ ~ N
•v
°
~ ~w
~ U_
C ~ ~
~
o M vi N
O
N v~
W ° 'o ~ ~ '~
U
w ~
e ~ «f
O a~i a~ .O
y ~-
~ ~ ~ a o
o ' o on
0
a~
~ ~
~
A o~ ~
w
~ z .b ~
~ ~' ~, i
3
~
CU
o
~
a a~~ o 0
-
~"' ~ w
Q v ~
o
~ •° `~"
G
, a
i
-a o ~ o = ~ c
N
rn .~ ~ ~ w ~ N ,
~
w
3 M
°
a A z v b r.. 'q
~ b
4; N
~
~
b
~W b
,
~
a
~
•
~
V ~ o
o
y~ O ~
y
' p '~
~ O
a~ v
c ~ ~ w .~
°' +
~
vi
~i ~.v
~~3 ~~ UUac
~ ~ ~ ~
¢ Q-o
a~ •
~ ~ o
~ ~
~,
~ °~ 'd ~ o o ;r o ,-~, , a ~ „~ ~ ~, ~ ,
~
QUA z7~~ ~v~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~•
.
~~
~
~
~
r.
~
~ ~ o ~,o~ ~ ~~~ a a U
~ ~ 'Y `~ o
z
' ~ ~ ~, ~
v~E-~A~ ~~ ~
o~
o
'
~ °
w
c~ ~
~ ~
o ' ~ ~
~ ~ b
~. a ~
~
~' a~ o ~ ~ a~ a. o ~ ~ ~
_
~ oio ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a.~vv~~H~Aw "~°~~
~
~ w U ~ ~
~ ~ C Vl ~ N M ~ ~ ~ ~ o^O ~ ^-~ N
M
r ~I
J
•
•
:
U b
«3 ~ N r
yam, ~ N
C
cd
d N ~ Q b
~ c
y b4 ~ ~ ~ ~ N N O
H
`"' ~ ~ 3
'v ' ~ ~ ~ ~' ~3 ai ~° ¢,
~
ai
~ ~ y ~
ts.~ ~° W
~ °
N
~ -o o
•~
~ ~ ~ ~
'
~
0 x •~ ~
N ~ C ~ 0 0
~
'~ 0
~ ~-o
~ ~
'c~
'~
~
.,
~ ~ ~ O ,
.b s
.
~ ~ O ..
O N
G
N y ~ >'
s
'
~ ^d O 4~
a sOs.~., 'a
q
b ~b ~'
~ ~'
~ s"' ,"''
A O ~ ~
b
+ ~ t
d ~ ~
~ O
~ w~
N O~ N _ y 0~ ~ R
° ~ ~ . E~ o. ° •v
o o
°A ~ a~i N ~ °
~ ~
`' > a~ v'c
'~ ~ ~ °'
w
' ~,
'
to •' ~ O
~ c~~ ~
~ o:, o~ w.
+
•
~j
`v ~
~ , ice'
0 •__' N
~
Rt yy....~~ Fi G> ~'i
R
~ • y
~ ~
~
y 0 ~ y
~ ~
~ ~
O
U +••. ~ U a--~ ~
~ to ~ U N ~'' ' ° N ^d ~ Yr .~ 7..
o
-v 3 ~ o
• o ~.~ ~-v
.
~+
G U ~ '~ 7.. ~ Lr ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~
+'' C~ ~
i
_
c
~
~ ~YW .n
~
~~ °
' °
w
~ ~ 3 ova
i~~
b
~:~ v~ o .~ ~, .~ v o N
o
w~ ~ ~~'oN '
3
3
~b b ~
~
~
~
a ~ ~ ~ ,
a~
°o ~ o ~~ ~° o ° ~ ~ ~ " v~_°: o 0
o~ ~°-3~ ~a~~.~~ o ~ 03~~~ o
-~ 3 Q
~ ~ .~ ~ .~ ~ ~
~ ° Y ° N b
-
~~
'~ c .
~ 3 0 .
~ ~o o ° ~ ~ o
'~ o
ar s °: ~ °= ~ o~
c ;; ~, y ~ o ~ .b a. ~ ;~ Q
o b
w° ~ y
~ ~
o ~ o v ~ >, o ~ ~ ~° o
o ~ ,
.
3 °' 'b ~ >, ,~ ~ 'v
^ o
~ ~;~~' c o.~ ~w
- ~,
~
~" ~ o ~ ~
o ~ N ~
c o ,~ ~ ~ w a~ a~ 0 0
a~ ~ °.~ Q ~ o ~. ~ w..W ~ ~ ~ ~
°
~' a II
: ~
b ~ ou ~' ~ ~ c`~ c i $ oo a~i > ~ ~' ~ c~ ~ „ a~ O
~ N ~
... ~.. ~ .~.~ .~ a U a ~ H ~ H E~ c~H..E-~ ~"
~
~
~ ~ ~ N
~ M
M ~ V
1
O
O -.
~--~ . ,
i
0
~~
~\
I
w
U
~I
w
U
~_~
n
U
QI
v
• ~
_
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Pbrenirg d Drurlepmnrr Srmirn ~~((e~
~/.N"
~ • ~
.
FOR OFFICE~~()ShF,ONIV
Case No. "" !~
OaN SuemMed ~Y - 1 _Us
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION
(Check aN applicable) X Land Use Amendment ^ Thoroughfare Amendment
^ alignment /location
^ dassihcation
Tne fawwina Hems must na
o ;850 application and review fee
o Two (2} copies of a fully dimensioned map on 24"X36" paper showing:
a. Land affected;
b. Present Honing of property and zoning dassification of all abutting properties;
c. Current land use plan daseification and proposed fond use plan changes;
d. Current land use daasification of all abutting property;
e. Cuvent and proposed thoroughfare alignments
a General location and address of property;
u Total acres of property; and
o All applicable Comprehensive Ptah Amendment Request form(s) completed in full.
The toNowing information must be completed before an application is accepted for review.
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
(if different from owner, a complete affidavit shall be required)
Nome: Charles 4`Ellison. PC E-mail: chud((~ellisonlaw.com
Street Address: 302 Holleman East ! PO Box 10103. CS. TX. 77842-0103
_City: C State: TX Zip Code: 77840
Phone Number: 979-693-1213 foffxxi} Fax Number:
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
• Name:~a t Bypass QgyeloQrnent Group fBill Atkinson) E-maN: Atkinson~lfabtexas.com
Street Address: 3001 Ruatlirta Qaks
City:_ Bryan State: TX Zip Code: 77802
Phone Number._ 3131-6~5 Faz Number. 361.8233
wlsros
Page 1 of l
•
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM
This request involves approximately 50 acres of vacant land boated generally at the southeast
• corner of Behests Road and the Earl Rudder Freeway East Frontage Road, and extending
south abng the Frontage Road to the developing church property at the entrance to Woodcreek
Subdivision (rater to attadied map).
Current Land Uss Plan designation: R8D Research 8 Development
Requested Land Use Plan dssignaton: Regional Retail
Explain the reason for this Land Use Plan amendment:
The R&D designation was placed on the property with the understanding that k would devebp
in a fashion similar to Texas DigRal Systems (TDS). Unfortunatey, there is no demand for
almost 50 acres of privately held R8D property in the City of College Station. The owners have
no desire to develop the property UremseMes; they soley wish to market it. UMortunately, the
R8D land use dasaification is not marketable at the present time. Its locator, along a state
highway and at a comer, makes it more useable for commercial development At the same time,
its location abng the By-Pass with the assoaated noise, make it undesirade for single-family
residential development. Thus the owners are requesting a change in the land use designation.
Identify what conditions haw changed to warrant a change in the land rue plan
designation:
Two wry significant code changes that have occurtad since the existing plan wan adopted aro
the Neighborhood Protection Standards and the Non-Residential ArchRectural Standards with
its requirement for a traffic impact analysis at the time of devebpment of a commercial site. The
requirements in these sections of the UDO add greater protection to surrounding neighborhoods
than ever before and, in fad, can albw for a less rigid separatbn of land uses than ban been
traditional in College Station.
• flow does the requested land use designation further fire goals and objectives of the City
of College Ststlon Comprehensive Plan?
This request furthers several of the L.at-d Use Goals and Obiedives:
• Proposes higher land use intensities along major roadways (Otry. 2.2),
• Provides for infill development within the existing sewershed (Obj. 1.2),
• Avoids strip commercal by boating at an intersedbn of two major roadways (Obj. t.3), and
• Protects existing neighborhoods by buffering proposed land uses adjacent to residential
areas as required by the UDO.
~rsros Page x ors
1r ~'
u
Explain why the regyested land use designation is mom appropriate than the existing
desigrwtbn.
• The R&D land use claas~cation IS not a marketable one at the present time. As stated above,
the public sector has devebpad two business parks and a research park severely Nmiting
additional demand for research and devebpment oriented property. This is evidenced by the
current number of privately held R8D tracts in CS that have yet to develop.
It is more likely that the tract, with its highway frontage and location at an intersection, will see
pressures for commerci~ development. The opposite comer of Behests is designated as
Regional Retail and b zoned C-1, as are both corners of Woodcreek Drive at the BY-Pass. All
of the properties are deveoped or are currently being developed. The depth of the property
allows for deveopment in such a way as to preclude the r-agalrve impacts of sUip commercial
development. The scheduled reconfiguration of access to Highway 8 by TxDOT vnll make the
property more appropriate for destination or specialty retail uses, as opposed to general
retailers. -
The remainder of the highway frontage as one moves norlfr is developed as churches, existng
neighborhoods and the Academy spedaNy retail developmerd. The bCation of this property
along Highway 8, makes k undesirable for single-famiy residential development.
77re applicant hat pvepared fhb application and certilfes that the lads stated herein and exhibits attached
he to ere hue and coned,
--~2cu,~~P, ~,~e.~~-.. - ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ o .sue
Si and Title Qom,., ~} paw
C
6/13/03
Page 3 of 3
•
~~ U5-~~
~Ic2 : 05 •'?3
IPS Croup
I'I,nniuc ~~~lutiun.
• SI 1 University Drive, Suite 2! l
College Slatioa, Teacas 77845
December 2, 2005
City of College Station, Development Services
Jennifer Proehar3ra, Senior Planner
1101 ?exss Avenue South
College Station, Texas 77840
Re: The Atkinson/Shoup Tract generally located on Highway 6 between Woodcreek
Ihive and Behests Road
Dear Jerwifa,
As you lmow, tha Feat By-Pass Ievelopment Oroup and their representatives have been
meeting with homeowners' repreaentrrtives over the past eight months to come to mutually
agreed upon land use classifications and potential zonings for the above referenced property.
Please accept this letter as confirmation to proceed with the comprehensive plan amendment
and rezoning requests that have been on hold rho past several months. These requests arc
revised as follows:
~mrnehensive Plan AmenCment:
My client is requesting to change the land use plan from It&D Research 8c thvetopment to
Retail Regional and Office as per the attached drawing.
Rezoning reouest•
Concurrently, my client requests a rezoning for the property south of Technology Wey from
R-1 end A-0 to A-P Administrative Professiot-al, as per the attached drawing.
I understand that all application few ere paid and that the anticipated schedule will be:
• Planning d: Zoning Commission -January S, 2005, and
City Council • January 26, 2005.
• Plcase let me know if then is additional information you need to procced.
Sincerely,
/J R. Kee, AICP
cipal
979.84b.9259 www.ipsgroup.us
•
•
Comprehensive Plan amendment to change to Regional Retail and Administrative Processional
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.
•
STAFF REPORT
• Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Sr. Planner Report Date: May 22, 2006
Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov Meeting Date: June 1, 2006
Project Number: 05-00500073
Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion of a rezoning for 18.9
acres, generally located to the east of and adjacent to State Highway 6, north of
Woodcreek Drive, west of Woodcreek & Foxfire subdivisions, and south of Technology
Drive, from A-O Agricultural-Open and R-1 Single-Family Residential to A-P
Administrative Professional.
Applicant: Charles A. Ellison, Agent for East Bypass Development Group, property
owner
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval.
Item Summary: The applicant is requesting this rezoning in order to market the property
for sale.
The property to the south is zoned C-1 General Commercial and is developed as Our
Savior's Lutheran Church. The property to the east is zoned R-1 Single-Family
Residential and developed as Woodcreek Subdivision. The property to the northeast is
zoned R&D Research & Development and is developed as Texas Digital Systems. The
property to the north is zoned A-O Agricultural Open and R-1 Single-Family Residential
• and is undeveloped. The property is bound on the west side by State Highway 6.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan is currently under review for
this area. The Unified Development Ordinance allows for Comprehensive Plan
amendments and rezoning applications to be processed simultaneously. The proposed
land use designation for the subject property is Office. This rezoning request is in
compliance with the proposed amendment. If the Comprehensive Plan amendment is
not approved, the zoning also should not be approved.
Several neighborhood meetings were held as part of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment process. During those meetings, office was cited as the most compatible
non-residential land use to the adjacent single-family homes in Woodcreek. Notes from
the meeting have been included in your packet with the previous action item. In
addition, representatives from the area neighborhood associations held several
meetings with the applicants, at which it was agreed that office use was preferred in this
location.
Item Background: A portion of the property was annexed in 1971 and the remainder in
1977. The current A-O Agricultural Open and R-1 Single Family Residential zoning
designations were placed on the property as holding zones at the time of annexation.
This property has never been platted.
The City had several rezoning requests in this area approximately 10 years ago. Staff
recommended approval in each case with various conditions such as requiring a master
• plan of the area, buffering, step-down zoning classifications, and limiting commercial
access to Sebesta Road. Residents' concerns were generally focused on cut-through
traffic and unacceptable land uses in close proximity to neighborhoods.
The previous requests on the subject property include C-3 Light Commercial, A-P
Administrative Professional, and C-1 General Commercial. In each case the proposed
rezoning of this property was in concert with proposed rezoning of adjacent properties.
Ultimately, the City Council denied the requests because of citizen concerns of traffic
and land use adjacencies.
Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the
question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission
options are:
1. Recommend approval;
2. Recommend denial;
3. Table indefinitely; or,
4. Defer action to a specified date.
Supporting Materials:
1. Small Area Map & Aerial Map
2. Application & Revision
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 5-16-06 and 6-6-06
•
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 6-1-06
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 6-22-06
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 21
Response Received: None as of date of staff report
•
i•
f~ ~
fP'
0
m
0~
i .'
'
'~qi
do'~~5
r M1\~.~Yh) 1 e a a~
p R
+ ~ ~
~ P!
w ~
.~
E OR
° 9 °
Q f'~
n
~
7 T f ~ 7
~
~ZS) ~
/~ ('
rlU~ ~
~j ~
m
FOM ~~ B
t
E
A ~
~. p
W ~
~
a
~ °
~
o irA
p~ o
W R B CP ,
b~ ~
o
m
m
•~y_
m
~Y
O
m ~~
~:
~
~ ~~~
~~ n
P
~~, 7
_
Ll0
nn
V
Z
Z
Q /O
.-~ 1 ~i LL
ry l'J
bob
°'o ~
U
~_ ~ n
R O~ ~ m ` S~ do ....
1~'
I
1 LL
(_),~ X11
~
~, ' or .~
.
~d O
~
~ `~ lo~ ~ `~
O F 46~ 17 $ ~, ~ ~
Q p @i aPg uu ''~,-J'
~ ~ ~
o ~- Z
ois
~ _ / ,~
a. Y
T
R ~
~
b
. (~ AUODE R fREEYMY 90VYlV
a
~`
o~ ~;,
~ r
~' .. o M
T
V
Jd ~ m
~
tlU ~
i ~
~'
C oP,
z _. U
~ ~j
~
p
~ ~V~
,11 .4.,y 9
~
n;~4rA ¢ p
d
W
~ ~ Q
~.
/ I+? ~
<<j
M
~a u ~ d
~ ~'
L7 ~ m
:~
~
ry W
~ a~
~ '
e
^~~ N ~ W
m' ~
$ y J ~~~ ~'`$
d
-
-
' a
~
n
J ~
~ ~
~ ~ $
~
m
9 '
~ f `
' A
y tll $
1 Z
~
' tea
N ~ ~ ~
~ ~
T a
(E' ~~ A A~ R m m A ~ ~$ O
c
~ 0
~ G4 ~N
q ~+ `fl F A 16
mA. ~~n
g W
Q
t0 ~ p A
F
~ V Q W R
W N1 ~ A FI ~i R p p p
~~°+~ ~ROawem oR' „ R ~ p ~` m ry
~ m
p ~ ~•
{ !B
A A R A W ~S A fl Fi A A A p o w p F
R fi
•
•
•
•
•
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO.
DATE SUBMITTED
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ~ , ~jL 7
PW anin~ 6 Utwlop~niwr Srrui,n
~~
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING} APPLICATION
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
If a petition for rezoning is dented by the City Council, another application for rezoning shall not be filed within
a period of 180 days from the date of denial, except with permission of the Planning & Zoning Commission or
Cfty Council. The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for consideration:
Application completed in full.
$500.00 application tee
_ Two (2) copies of a fulry dimensioned map on 24'x36' paper showing:
a. Land affected:
b. Legal description of area of proposed change;
c. Present zoning;
d. Zoning classification of all abutting land; and
e. Alt public and private rights-of-way and easements bounding and Intersecting subject land.
Written legal description of subject property (metes & bounds or lot 8 block of subdivision, whichever is
applicable).
The Rezoning Supporting Information sheet completed in full. A CAD (dxf/dwg) or GIS (shp) digital file
may be required for more com lex rezoning requests.
Date of Required Preapplicatlon Conference: 14 March 2005
APPLICANT'S INFORMATION:
Name: Charles A. Ellison
Address: 3001 Rustling Oaks, Bryan, Texas 77802
Address 302 Holleman East / PO Box 10109, College Station, Texas 77842-0103
E-Mail: chuck~ePelllsonlaw.com Phone Number: 979/698-9889 Fax Number: 979/693-8819
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: ~Crtr-vdLZ.
Name: East Bypass Development Group TO~G97q -~t.t-4t3a3- ~-ex~
E-Mail: atklnaon®fabtexas.com Phone Number: 979/381.8285 Fax Number: 979/361-6233
This property was conveyed to owner by deed dated 16 Juty 1979 and recorded in Volume 428, Page 297 of
the Brazos County Deed Records.
General Location of Property: SE comer of Sebesta Road and the Earl Rudder Freeway E. Frontage Rd.
extending south to the developing church property on Woodcreek Drive (see mep)
Address of Property: NA
Legal Description: Attached
Acreage -Total Property: 49.295 Acres
Existing Zoning: RbD, R-1, A-O Proposed Zoning: C-1
Present Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Retail
s~ia+o~
Pays t o12
•
BONING SUPPORTING INFORMAT I
•
•
1.) List the changed or changing conditions in the area or in the City which make this zone change
necessary.
During the last small-area planning effort for this portion of College Station, it was assumed that
Texas Digital Systems would expand Into much of this remainder of the original parent tract. h to now
known that that will not occur and the owners ere seeking the zoning of the adjacerK tracts to the
north and south (C-1).
Also, two very significant local code changes have occurred since the adoption of the present
comprehensive plan. They are the Neighborhood Protection Standards and the Non-Residentlel
Architectural Standards, which contain the requirement for a traffic Impact analysis. Theas changes,
not anticipated at the time the current plan was adopted, provide for much greeter protection and
buffering for residential uses.
Finally, the property was annexed In two pieces in the 1970's and zoned R-1 and A-O. At the time
those deaignatfons wero automatically applied as "holding" districts with the code requiring the
appropriate designation be given the property by the City within a year of the date of annexation.
However, no subsequent reconsideration of the zoning took place.
2.) Indicate whether or not this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. If it is not,
explain why the Plan is incorrect.
The requested zoning la not in compliance with the current plan; however, a comprehensive plan
amendment was submitted prior to this application. Favorable consideration of that application will
leave this request in accordance with the Comprehensive Plen.
3.) List any other reasons to support this zone change.
Limited access to and from the bypass will make high-Intensity commercial development unlikely on
this tract. The depth of the property will help promote flexible and moro appropriate site design. The
depth will also butter impacts to area residences.
The rezoning will allow for the furtherance of the following goals and objectives of the comprehensive
plan:
- Higher intensities along major roadways (Obj. 2.2);
- Infllt development within ha existing sewerohed (Obj.1.2);
- Avoid strip-commercial by locating at the intersection of two major roadways (Obj. t-3)
The applicant has prepared this application and supporting information and certifies that the !acts
stated herein and exhitrifs attached hereto are true and correct. lFAPPLICATION 1S FILED BY
ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNEA OF THE PROPEATY, APPLICATION MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A POWER OFATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER.
Sig lure of owner (or agent) or applicant
~'.~ ~ ~5
Date
s~i~
Page 2 of 2
•
~ctap U5 • ~{~
~c2 : OS • ~3
IP5 Group
!'I.~nn~ne ~,~luii,~n,
•
511 University Drive, Suite 211
College Station, Texas 77845
December 2, 2005
City of College Station, Development Services
Jennifer Prochaska, Senior Planner
1101 Texan Avenue South
College Station, Texas 77840
Re: The Atkinson/Shoup Tract generally located on Highway 6 between Woodcreek
Drive and Behests Road
Dear Jerutifer,
As you know, the East By-Pass Developmart Group and their representatives have been
meeting with hameowaers' representatives over the peat eight months to Dome to mutually
agreed upon land use clesaifications and potential zonings for the above referenced property.
Please accept this letter as confirmation to proceed with the comprehensive plan amendment
and rozoning requests that have been on hold the past several months. These requests are
revised as follows:
Comtxehertaive Plan Amcndmenr.
My client is requesting to change the land use plan from R&D Research & Development to
Rotail Regional and t~ce as per the attached drawing.
847A~.f4gYt~ffi:
Concuer+eutly, my client tegrtesta a rezoning for the property south of Toclmology Way from
R-1 and A-0 to A•P Administrative Professional, as per the attached drawing.
I understand that all application fees are paid and that the anticipated scheduk will be:
Planning dt Zoning Commission -January S, 2005, and
City Council -January 26, 2005.
•
Please let me know if there is additional information you need to proceed
Sincerely,
/J~ie R. Kee, AICP
ncipal
979.846.9259 www.ipsgroup.us
•
•
Comprehensive Plan amendment to change !o 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 o1 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 o1 the land designated as Regional Retail is incumbent on the concomitant
implementation of traf}ic mitigation measures to alleviate the high volume of cut-through traffic that will
result on Emerald Parkway, Sandstone Dr., Sebesta Rd., Foxfire Or. 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.
•
~~ ~ ~, ~
~~
~~
,c
Rn~&~RR~
WssWsWWWs3
~r~a~~~~~ar
- _o_• sap:
~ZNZZhZNZZN
8$$$$Si~$$$
3 9«BnSryNssn
~ryryryri, °n, I°;n'~i,v
~}°RRRi°RRRR~
88$8$$$$$$$
~St8iC88nY.iYSiCR
<88888n8888
X88888:_888
°8&~4~~'caRa
~u£i'c1~'0$G8E~
onuady a/6v3 /o
uarualx3 ainlnj $
3 ,LZ, lf.lf N
./- - - - - Lil +~
--- --
~
~ .3.n.d .Ol \
I RI I A 1
I ~~ I
I ~ i ~
,00'Ofl
/ W I I 3 ,LZ.lf.lf N I
dl
i I I I
i n 81
n I i N ~
\ ~ 3Y+d Z
.cs I
/ ~
\ i L - -
PV4 I ,oo•a/
3
LZ
lf
lf N -
y
i j I .
,
.
_ I
~/ I i r '3Y+d .11Z
I
- - - - I
L I
-----
--- I
--J ;
.bb'3fi ~
I
^ r --- - 3 Z, If.tf N -- -l o
~ I.
1 I
8 I ~
~ i ~ I r, g
- - - - ,I( I
IlV I I
• I
,h ry I ~ I~ I 'u .ao
al
3 ,LL,If.lf N
I
~
~;, - - arrd .st J~
L
~~ ~--- -~ y I
I
's'
I
~
~
I
I h
I
a$
~ I------ -~
ni
°
I n
„
I I
~ '3'n'd ,5
'
~ ~
--- .00
Ofl'---
-- -
~N I 3 ,LZ,If.lf N
- - - d~ I
I
I I
I
~ I s i I '°
I
I
I R
S
W
~ I
I
L,aL'mt- - ~ I
~ ~\ I 1 3 .LL.tf.lf N I
'~^d.c~ I r - - -
1
I ~
f v
~~ ~ ;a
$m~t ~ ~~~'"w ~,7{Ya ~~; 9 s ~5~
ag~ ~ s `
a 4
a~~~~ ~g3L'~ S~ ~a g~~ ~ ~e ~a b~ ~
•,a~~g ~~ -E g'~ •~d o,~~~ :ass «o ~ ~~ F~ ~
5 u 38 :YS ki ~s
~ g ~ x ;~ 5a ~~~~x ~~ d~
~ ~ 3~~~ ~~~~a ~~~~~~ ~s~~~ ~~~ ~e
oLL '~ ~m xN i
•uf• ~m I
w+lW1 /wW49 nW+WY3
I
Ju~wd,ar - Mor,oa
m anuan y o/60,~
3 ,Li.tf.lf N
I 3'n'd ,01 I
' ~~
I I
I
I
-- - ---- I
~8 --o -~~8r--- ~N
§~W ~ I~~I ~ ~~ m ~ I I
I n t l I ~ '~, 1
a .~ I I
I R I .ol ~ 1~ ~ I I
I i
r~ ,arcs .ao ca
31Z,tf.tf N .Oy rb
dt m
3 .LZdtlf N
7Yd 1 \
I '3'n'd ,S \
I
;
I
g
I ~ ~ v
n
S `f'
~ ~ h ~ ~ I
a P'
~
z ` ~
n
E
L ~
---
~
C, ~ I ; k
^
,
,115'1( ~ ,OG'fL [[7
I
~ Xa 0
I - --
~ -8
vry
i
~3 ~
o;
i s
i n ~
.. 0
Y
8 N
= ; n
~"'
;~ 3 ~
~ o
A
I zI
I
I
I
3'n'd ,5 I
~i~ --- -.11s1s--- --.oe'ef- - c~
3 .LZ, lf
.l1 N 3 .LZ.lf.lf N 3 .[L.lf.Lf N I =
m m
3 .LZ,If.{f N
~ I I ~ 'Lf~JL'1 I ,oo•oL .ao'w
~ \ o
\ 1~ ~ ~ ~ I
\ I to I / of I DWI
I r~ o I Qa~ ool
\ I
~I
,g "' ~ -zs
I
"R •°
J
-
,Zt'9Zl I
3 ,LZ,l1.H N I
'3Y+d
OZ ~ I
R
,
OI I
e
I I ~
I
- ----
~---J
`
~t~
LZt
3
LL
lf
lf N
3 - --
y
y
_
-
3'n'd ,Ll I --,
I
$ I
h I
~ l
~
n
~
n
z I Y
~
,
I `~ I
,aeasl g
3.LZ.lf.lf IN ~ I 2
• I U
r O I
~ ~ I
~
~i
I i g
8
a I
.to'txl
----3 ,LZ,Lf.lf N---1
3'n'd .S I I
I t
IW
I
R "~ I ` ~ Z~
I ~k~
J
~ .to'at
I
-
3 .LZ.lt.lf N
3Y+d .OZ ~ I
s ~ I ~
« g N c
~ I I
I
~ .tolxl I I
s I
\\ I ~ ~~ I T ~ ~~ ~ I I R
3'n'd A{ I j ~ .~ n1 I i I z ^ 'an~a .In I I `~
I -------~ - ------ ---~ '~
- ~ - _ - - J L-----~ 1 ------------ -J ~--',uza-- .sa'fs .to'otl ~
.9YL5 ,f0'ffl - 3 .LZ.If.lf N ,f9'YL St•IS N 3 .LY,af.tf N 3 Sf 6f tf N a c l
. 3 ,15.
Lo - e-
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,lIYLS - 3~SY,BhIt
- I ~M- wa~a ~NOq 41plAIMaw+on -~~ 'an'e .o~ ~ I (~z L-ed
I / , •n,~, .~ m
a 1 //~~ I
I ~ ~
I I I / ~ / 2 ~ k ~ ~I--r- - -
I I /'~ ~ I I a
/ ~ III ~"
_ ~~- ~$
-' ~ I I
Jw,w~eld ,LL ^~ AID'Y ,OL \ 1 I I I
auv7 ua6nd/ I
I I W
S
R
' S ~M-M-iNba faou~wp uggi5
St i6i~ro~ a° ~ twM ,ar S
R
r .lo
a .ro'al
r .3.n.d .tx- - - -~
~; ; i ;
I
I
- - -r I I - - - - I
~ni .~~$ III
° I I
~ ~ ~"
~~~ ~
IV I
I
I $ I
I I
--
h
a
N
~ ~~
h
^' ~~ ~ _ '~
L[`~1 6
~ V ~ ~~
V ~ ~ e g ~
~ Q o ~ h .' ~~~~g
zm ~~
~Wrn~o~
~~
~~~~
W
'w~ ~W ~~
A
w ~~~~
~ ~
~
g ,
s~~
gx~ ~
~ ,
~
~s g ~~
~
s
g
~~
a~ RF~ ~ ~ 8 ~ 5
~~p„z~a ~ ~ ~~~~
~~ i& ~
>r
~ 111 1111
~
~
~ _
nz~e1Oi~~r ~~
000
~'~ £s ~
~ ~o~~
ooko
gg
_ n h : N n
~~-
~~~
.
,:
I g
~
~
~
~.
=
D~ ~° ~ y
y
g~~
s ~'~ ~
~~ ~ ~ ~~
-a ~
e ~
~~
g
S
~ ~ ~~a
F
E
~ ~ F A
~~~€~ $~
~~~
_~€ ~ ~
tttt:~
~Sp
O
~~~
~~
~~
~~
€ ~b
b
s ~
_~ ~~
~~~ ~ .f ~ ~
~ ~ .s ~
E 1
q ~~§ ° ~ S
a~ ~~ ~~
g~ gg •$~ ~~
~ ~~N~~ ,~
~s~ ~ grg e
e~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~6 ~ ~~ ) 3f ~ d
~~ ~<<<~~ G~ ~ ~L ~RI
-- \ N~H~~
~I, 7p~ ~, ~ ~ O
~~ ~ ,,~. Ob~~ some ~ Z
S
i>+ ~ .aJ`~ ~ 3 0~
jJ ~ 3~ A~ irr% gk~ `~
-- _~_-_-_-~_ ` _ yd
gg ~ a q
i P ~ ~ 5~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r .o.J ~ y
~ ; >n oriYr,..rt M-J j ai ®i p~ ; r ~ 4A
'' ~~ p
I~~ 11 Al ~, i •Aro'Y m ~ p ~1 ;
1 ,, 1 II ~ ~,~~
O M ~~ I ~ ki Ik ~ ~ 'a an earrll ,re p
IR 1n 1
; F ^^ II LL_
1 ~ 0 ~F 1 l ~
1 ~ d I ; 1 ~"- Tn~'--
~ «.arr x~ 1 ir~AUl
,...__ __ ~, W , I p
1 , ~ unln~aww AI ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ I F- 4d O ;
~ ~ ~ O --Ba ~' i ~~~ p I ;; m
~ J O ~s ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~'- _- =art .YIQ11,/ xt J
A rn aarnl .re c-- ,~~_ ~-
f _m_ I ' ~ Ir W ~~S ---
"~~ A ~ `J unN alto Al 1 \
/ ~ ~4NW alnl Al I i I w~ ~ 11 \Y/ li I ~ \Y.
' M Ba ~
t
~_ ~ ~a ' ~ a~ Q ~k ~ ! ; ~ 0 5~ ~
~ I~ ~
° 1 ~
I w .MnMI
I u'ree~,ar 11' v'i, r Iw/,~e~ 1 ' ---- - - - -----
'--- -'• i - ~ ~ -`L _ _ ~,• .mow ulc _ .J
1 ' -- - ---- ---- _ _ - - - -
- - -- ~3rs~ii~%: - a. -- - - - -
__ ,
~. - -~7 I I ~„ -- ---
Ir wwe unm INalll" Irt_---~----'-------a-----~r-- ----------'---
-~-----~~A--------~ i ~ i
NI ;~ ~ i
1 FI ~ I ~ ~a
ig~~~~ O~~ ~I; ~I 0'
j ~ it I I ~ ; 1 ; 7x11 arrliM .rt '
'- ~ "_ _" ace __~'-
1 •------------------- ---'
r „~
ff ~---
A0F]M ullrl aw Ae~,~i 1 ; I Y Avw amppm '~ ;~
~'--~-Ifs If -' ~ ~ ~ ~ 4R w ;
1 I~ ~ , I ~ ~ g9b z ~` ,, iq~~
(~'2~a S3~b'1bOd S0~ 1 ~ ~ ~_ _Lnaarr.rt O 1 `
_ _ _ _ _ I ~
1 ~~___ _]
~__~-_.t I---__ Q I ~- _ - - - -'~
S1 AaYam AIIW a~ AT~y~ 1 ; I u1L"NIY4 Al ~
1 ____________________ `~P I 1 I ~ ~,a O
L _
1 I~ ~ I m
a WI i ~~ ; i I i J
yy p I I lpa4 IM MPIr~ ,K
8 ~y ' ~ O $a ~ I ; 'tar m ; L. _ _ _ ~
N ~
~~ ,1 i -gyp id ; pl --"- --';;,~_=-_~-__
_ r ~
i ---------------- --- ----I
- 1
I ~ >n awr. x~ ~ ;
I
1 ~ I tit----tea--f ~,.,.,.,..~,.,.~.,.,. ~l"Tt
I ~ ~ r _F _._'A; _. _...F~
' I'
I ~.
~ O I ' ~ ~--'-*1-- -l
~ 9i a ; -------------------- --
1
~ aYrvw xa ` ' I I I
J m 1~ i ~ c
~= . ~ ; i
w~un~a„ru AI
p I, 1 W I i L_ rn wmnr x< 1
; J I ~ f~:_-~~ -a
1
' n I ; 1 ~ ~ ~ urun atina ,ol
i_ xYl aYYrr A's ~ p 1
- - ~ ~ -T~:TS:~ _ 1 - 1 . 1 1 y p
,Yfll,~19 y~, Li.1 , r ; I xi ~ ~~I
I y~ _~wun alrr Al ~ I i 1~ Q ~ 11P ; IJ snQw+mrr xt
$ ~
1g ~ ~ ~ f6 ; ~ 1 ; r ~. ^. ti
` ~ L ~ ` 1 ~ ~ I O AI 7 1 T
I' r orn wrtrr .re ; A ~ ' o
' 1 ~ ~ «~.~. ,r~
u'1 e' ~ 1 Q L _ _ _ ~
a ----
; O ~ pa ~ I __~ __'-
W I; I , i t ~' un YcnenY ,cl Y
am e,l~r,/ A.t ~ ~
L _ ~~ J ; ; I
_ nzr~---- Ia~d ~ 4a O F
~~.~" ~ m
AYIAI aw ,01 y , ; , R ; ~ 1M1 OwQYIM xt
o- ~ , , ~ -- =: ,=rim-~'-- _:.,
, ~ J ~~ Q 1 ' ~ i ~ i unln awu .ol
~.. _._ ~ ~
I `~ilalatn`~~r_ _ ~~ I~ ~ ~ O~R ~ I y R
ulw awu AI I i ~ J ., a
I ~ ~ ; Fi I L - - - rn YYlmn .r' ti td
_~
~~ II ._-_ ~__-
~ ;a ~ ~ .ol
~~a ti/ ~ !~
/~ I~ I!s oaf R
Y~ ~ -- arl aprtr ,PL I
R 1. 1 `'°' ~ssr[----- _
r--- _-
~ ~ I I I -_~ul~Owlm~rrne AI _ ~~
\, ~,\0 ~~ ,/ O ~~ a
a 'r ~~~ ~~
_ .,
-----
,ZSZf£ M ,B9,l/lf N
I
,\
" ~~ ~b
.~~~
`\
xbL
g
s ~~~~
•. e•~i
°~pa
fu
ji~
~~ ~
a~~
,j
~ ~~
a
~ ,~
~ _~
sf
.~i
~~
~~
~~
~~~
~~
~~~
~~~
~~~
~~8
~~Y
e
x
~ ~
N -r.
Y r .•
ti
4
~~
2
0
°m
0
V
4
3
W yl
N
W ~ ~
~ ~ ~ z ~,
~ ~~; g"
n n
a ~
~
~
~ rn~$N
~
O
~
~ I
N
6
j
(
f
a
~
a ~ o
~
~
n
13a
F ~O++Q~' ..$ Nf
o
~
~ a Oo3
z
L
1 ~ ~y3~~
~
~
~
~ J J
~ ~<`< VI
y
g 000000
~ ~ ~ r ~ ~
4
~ ~
~ ~.~
~ ~~
~ ~~
~ ~~~~
~, x~
~'
~ ~~ ~
~~~ ~ ~
w
~ ;~ ~~
e ~ ~ ~ ~~
~~
J
~ti
~2q2
4J
t ~ ~ ~
6
M
g rJ a
a.~ ~„~
~
S $.
R
C E
'3 ®"
~~ ~~ ~~ g ~
~~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
d
e ri •~d
~
~ ~.I ~ i
~
a
1
I
~ #~ ~
a'
.t
~ ~
~ _~~$
t
a a
~ ~
f f
f
a~6 s ~~
~~ ~~ J a
~1
~~'
~ (
1
~ ~j~ p` ~
a
L ~ f
73 t
N~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I
77
i{
igtf a, i
{f~
i
~ f
a ~ ~ ~
~ ,~ f~ Af ~ ~ ~ ~;~
t as ~ ~~~
$ ~ ~~ z t'j~ it
~1
~a ~a ~ i,~; s ~ ~~~fj~
1~~~ ~~{~ Z e ~~'fi
E
~~ ~~~'~ ~~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~~ '~f
~~ f~~a~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~;~~
a Y t' fe~a
i ~j i~{w ~.~ ~f~6 t; i~~y
1 ~ji~ i~f aka •~ a;ij
i5~6 6~~~ il~ ~~~ ~;
r f
~ ~~a~~ a~~~ trt~ ~~~, ~B :$
y~yi~ 3ijl~l, 'l , a;t~ p16a ~~ 1
~bYBp~ j~~s~ ~~j~ ~f~A 7ti~ "fa}} ftjet
a +~i a~~~: a~~i +~~~ f"~~ ~f 1~~i
j~dE~ ~pfi ~'QQ~~ ~~f1 ~j ~isj
a!
~~i~~ fi1$ t;ba ~~*~ ~, ~~~~
Hl~t ~ A, .~~~ a~g~ ;~~ a~~a
~~~~~ .t~s F6~Y ~~~a ~j6 ~t~
~ ~ 5"
~fj~i ~fi~ ~~ft ~~3~ ~Pi ~i~;~
i ~a
~ ~~ ~ b
g ~~ ~ ~ ''~~ d8
~11~' € ~~
f;. b •,
+; ,,, c ~~'Ei ~ d
~` nrO~ ~ a~ to
ar
o«~ n ~
~•
,°•• ~• ~ ~
e
nc 'a / rws ~a
iaNU ~ aru
va Y"Y YMin
AIYYrNt p Mal
-I ~~
" ~ ~ a
~-
~
2 ~ c=n p
__ _.._ _cnJ z
/. .r ~ bj f f~ I I
~, ;~ ~_ _ J~ _ _
_ e 3.~, .co T ~ ,,pO~
~_ g;§0.L0 N
69'496' o
~
,~ f ~ ¢LL, 1
f V
I
1 t ~
'
r ~
y y
~ „ `l
• ~) i 1 ~ f
j I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~~~yy ~~~yy ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~
i ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1n L L C W ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~,~~
~ i ~~~ i~, ~~ ~_
i ~~lifi ,~~ ~~ ~~
Q ~!1 ~~ z ~ I ~
1 ~,,
p O <
~I
I UZo
~~ Q~T~
/ r~oZ~z<
.. ~ o
n ~ ~~
x
/ ¢ ~
/ ~ W
N o
.~
1
~'~1~ ~ s
,J ~ ~-
• / /
r ~, ~ ...~
///~
~/ • % i
... \ .
c
Z
w
c~
w
J
Q
z
U
~ M _7
q+ c z ~
_ _~
~ ~~~ U ~~
t ~ ~~ o ~ 'hjP\O ~;
~oZ ~ '
a i
~ ~g ~~`~
~
~
~ 1,
~ `o.
~~~ i 1d
1i
,~~. 11% l J
~~
.._.
f z,,~i~ I /N ~ U ~
t~r~~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~ 1
alr, /
(l\y~ r.l "f~;d'LifiiLAi'atl7---
~~~ ~~~
/~ o~~ N r I. M¢ 4, ~
,_y o y O
,moo j. ~~~ ~, -~
- U d _
d I ~ '-~i'I - , Ai
I'~ f LL
~¢, i t ~ I No;LL ~z~ I i
~....x";r~ . I II -. 5 ~ I 4.
'_-M~1-.. ~ f ,
o.
- ~ ~ Y
^'
rive A
~~ 9'ZLZ ' M .9L~90. + i
~~
} ~ ~ ~~~
~..~:j,~ i ~ i w ~ 1
,.. Q ,...i__~ o v ~I
~, ~:, ii
_~ :.. n .
Y =~..
,~ ~ 1 ~ ~i.,.. `
ao
. % § "+~ ~^
~~
\~~...; ,9b=90S d5 ~~
.,60' ;/
~ ~~ ~~
/ ~, ~)
/'~ '1/
/I/
~~
~~
n
VYh
7
8
e .Z.
Q
~ I
_=Z a
a~0
U~QQ
U
~QOc`no
O ~ W N
~p.'ON
~~~<~
g~~~o
=~N~~
U
~`~
"°K„ _
.coq ~ _ _
L.1.._
~~.
< ~.
/~ ~:
L..t_
~ ~~ <
• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
n ~ ~ ~ ~bXX ~~ ~ ~+~ 7~~
~~n ~~ ~ ~ g~ ~ ~~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
b= ~ R $&
~ _ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~g 3
~~ ~
~aS'~`~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ R~~~~~ ~~ xR ~~ ~
~ ~ ~j Of a ~ ~~
I ~ ~ ~
~ . ~ ~~~ ~j~ ~ ~~ ~ n~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < m
of ri i ri d~ r~~ o w ° .'.8~ ~ ~ s~ ~ ° ~~ °~ °~ a rv ~ ~
O ~
J
~
O W
~N N w i'nn _ L.
_ o
~
` =
n
L
i _
~_ Q ~
aQr- ~Q
C~ j~
_
W _ _
`
/
rn ~
W (~ a rv m
~
U
r ~
Z
W H O N
W W
J N W ? ~o __ r-
3 v. = W
'~{ i ~ °:
~~
~ ~ ~~ _
~` ~..
V
_~ Q y~o
N z
W _
~
(
` FN-~FN- }~
Q a
G _
W
o0o
Q z~
m ~
z W W ~
~~ ~e~~
y
Y
y ~
~~
N a,~
~r
g
Z W •N
a°s. o
ti
f
~(
~C
~
U= ~ 000 I
LL.N ~
V~O O Yo
O
~
^ 0
z
o
/~
VJa ~mmm
O
~F O W
c
~
W
~
N p
.~_
w
~Ci
O
- Q
3 ~
~U B ~
Ph
~
W Q
C7 w
Q
ZNw s- ~«
W Z ~S' E w
~ ~ ;~ m
N p ~"
~x
J J ~
J c g •~
a p
c p i n
p
~
m
O
U lv
N Q~~ ( .
..
d
NNY
.7uly 13, 2006
Workshop Agenda Item
Recommendations Regarding the Parkland Dedication Ordinance
To: Glenn Brown, City Manager
From: Steve Beachy, Director of Parks & Recreation
Agenda Caption: Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding
recommendations related to changes in the Parkland Dedication Ordinance.
Recommendation(s): The staff recommends that the City Council provide direction
regarding the issues presented. The Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning &
Zoning Commission worked jointly to develop the recommendations in this presentation.
Summary: These recommendations were developed by a joint committee composed of
representatives from the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board and the Planning & Zoning
Commission. The final recommendations for anv changes to the ordinance will be reviewed
by the Legal Staff and then approved by both croups after public input has be gathered
through focus group meetings. Only after this process is complete, will final
recommendations be brought back to the City Council for consideration.
The Parkland Dedication ordinance provides a means to acquire and develop neighborhood
parks. The funds are generated by the development of new residential units and must be
used for neighborhood park acquisition or development within a prescribed service area as
defined by Parks Zones.
The ordinance requires a three year review period and the most recent changes were
approved in December, 2005. However, the fees were not reviewed at that time. The
current fees were adopted on January 24, 2002 and are based upon an estimated land price
of $20,000 per acre and a park development cost of $300,000 per each neighborhood park.
The cost of both of these components has increased since 2002.
The standards for neighborhood and community parks are defined in the attached Section
ZV: Recreation, Park 8c Open Space Master Plan which was approved in 2003.
The two key policy issues to consider at this time are:
1) What level of service will be provided to new residential areas?
2) Who will pay for those services?
The need for this discussion is based upon three factors: the current cost of land; the cost
of park development; and the estimated population growth for the City of College Station.
The recommendations for changes to the ordinance include the following key items:
1) A new methodology to determine more accurate land values.
2) The inclusion of community parks into the dedication requirements.
3) The current cost for the development of parks in College Station.
Budget & Financial Summary: The current fees are $556 per single family dwelling unit
and $452 per multifamily dwelling unit. The recommendations for revised fees would
increase them to at least $1,782 for single family dwelling units and $1,448 for multifamily
dwelling units. The fees could be more if the affected land values exceed $20,000/acre.
• Attachments:
1. Proposed Revisions to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance as recommended by the
subcommittee
2. SECTION IV: Area and Facility Concepts and Standards; Recreation, Park & Open
Space Master Plan (Adopted June 12, 2003)
ORDINANCE NO. Page 2
welfare, and that the only adequate procedure to provide for neighborhood
and community parks is by integrating such a requirement into the
procedure for planning and developing property or subdivisions in the city,
whether such development consists of new construction on vacant land or
rebuilding and remodeling of structures on existing residential property.
Neighborhood parks are those parks providing fora variety of outdoor
recreational opportunities and located within convenient distances from a
majority of the residences to be served thereby. The park zones established
by the Parks and Recreation Department and shown on the official Parks and
Recreation map for the City of College Station shall be prima facie proof that
any park located therein is within such a convenient distance from any
residence located therein. The primary cost of neighborhood parks should
be borne by the ultimate residential property owners who, by reason of the
proximity of their property to such parks, shall be the primary beneficiaries
of such facilities.
Community parks focus on meeting community-based recreation needs, as
well as preserving attractive landscapes and open spaces. In general they
are likely to be 25-70 acres in size and one community park is likely to meet
the community-based needs of those residing in one park zone. In serving
multiple neighborhoods, community parks provide many of the same
facilities as neighborhood parks with the possible addition of amenities that
are designed to serve a larger catchment population such as swimming pools
and athletic facilities.
Therefore, the following requirements are adopted to effect the purposes
stated above and shall apply to any land to be used for residential purposes:
10-B General Requirements
The City Manager or his designee shall administer this Section 10,
Requirements for Parkland Dedication with certain review, recommendation
and approval authorities being assigned to the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board as specified
herein.
Dedications shall cover both land acquisition and development costs for
neighborhood and community parkland for all types of residential
development._ Dedications shall be based on actual dwelling units for the
entire development. Increases or decreases in final unit count prior to final
plat will require an adjustment in fees paid or land dedicated. If the actual
number of dwelling units exceeds the original estimate additional parkland
culc:ldocuments and settingslllindgren.cstxllocal settingsltemplxpgrpwiselpreliminary revised ordinance july, 06.doc
1/18/07
ORDINANCE NO. Page 3
shall be dedicated in accordance with the requirements in this Section 10
with the 1:Iling of a final plat.
The methodology used to calculate fees and land dedications is attached
hereto as Appendix 1 and incorporated and made a part of this ordinance for
all purposes.
Fees paid under this Section may be used only for development or
acquisition of neighborhood and community parks located within the same
Zone as the development.
1. Land Dedication
For residential developments the area of land to be dedicated for
neighborhood and community parkland purposes shall be determined by the
procedures described in Appendix I.
The total amount of land dedicated for the development shall be dedicated in
fee simple by plat:
a. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for multi-family
development,
• b. Concurrently with the final plat for a single phase development,
c. For a phased development the entire park shall be either platted
concurrently with the plat of the first phase of the development
or
d. The developer may provide the City with financial security
against the future dedication by providing a bond, irrevocable
letter of credit, or other alternative financial guarantee such as a
cash deposit in the amount of the appraised value of the
parkland.
The amount of the financial guarantee is calculated by
multiplying the number of acres of parkland required to be
dedicated by the appraised fair market value of an acre of land in
the proposed subdivision. As determined by an appraisal that
has been ~regared no more than six (6) months prior to the
master plan application for the proposed subdivision, or
preliminary plat if a master plan is not required The appraised
fair market value of an acre of land in the subdivision is
calculated by dividing the fair market value of the land in the
subdivision by the number of acres in the subdivision. To make
this calculation, the subdivider. at his/her expense must show
• the current fair market value of the land as determined by a
qualified real estate appraiser. If the city so elects it also may
cult: (documents and settingslllindgren.cstxllocal settingsltemplxpgrpwiselpreliminary revised ordinance july, 06.doc
1/18/07
ORDINANCE NO.
Page 4
employ a qualified real estate appraiser to determine the current
fair market value of the land.
In the case of subdivisions where fewer than twenty (20)
dwellings are to be constructed, the records of the tax appraisal
district shall be considered to be the current fair market value of
the land. However, if either the city or the developer consider
the tax appraisal district's valuation of the land to be
unacceptable, then the objecting party] at its expense, may
employ a qualified real estate appraiser to determine the current
fair market value of the land.
The financial guarantee will be released to the developer, without interest,
upon the filing of the final plat for the subsequent phase that dedicates the
required park land.
2. Fee in Lieu of Land
The amount of the Fee-in-Lieu of Land ("Fee") shall be set at an amount
• I sufficient to cover the costs of the acquisition of neighborhood and
community parkland.
A landowner may elect to meet the requirements of Section 10.8.1, in whole
or in part, by paying a fee in the amount set forth in Appendix I. Before
making this election, for any required dedication greater than three (3)
acres, or for any development containing floodplain or greenway, the
landowner must:
a. Obtain a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board, and
b. Obtain approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission
pursuant to the Plat Approval Procedures in Article 3.3 of the
Unified Development Ordinance.
For neighborhood or community parkland, the fee shall be calculated usin
the procedure described in section 10.B.1d to value the land, and the
procedure shown in Appendix I to calculate the total amount of the fee which
shall be remitted:
• Prior to the issuance of any building permits for multi-family
development) or
• Upon submission of each final plat for single family, duplex or
• townhouse development.
cult: (documents and settingslllindgren.cstxllocal settingsltemplzpgrpwiselpreliminary revised ordinance july, 06.doc
(/18/07
ORDINANCE NO. Page 5
Fees may be used only for acquisition or development of a neighborhood or
community park facility located within the same Zone as the development.
The City Manager or his designee is authorized to accept the Fee for
dedications of fewer than three (3) acres where:
• There is a sufficient amount of parkland existing in the park zone of
the proposed development or
• The proposed dedication is insufficient for a Neighborhood Park site
under existing park design standards.
This determination shall be made based on the Recreation, Park & Open
Space Master Plan, as amended from time to time.
3. Park Development Fee
•
•
culc:ldocuments and settingslllindgren.cstxllocal settingsltemplxpgrpwiselpreliminary revised ordinance july, 06.doc
1/18/07
ORDINANCE NO. Page 6
•
•
In addition to the land dedication, there shall also be a fee established that is
sufficient to develop the land to meet the Manual of Neiahborhood Park
Improvements Standards to serve the zone in which such development is
located. This fee and the estimate of community park improvement costs
shall be computed as shown in Appendix I. The total fee shall be paid upon
submission of each final plat or upon application fora building permit,
whichever is applicable.
3. Park Development Option in Lieu of Fee
A landowner may elect to construct the neighborhood park improvements in
lieu of paying the Park Development Fee under the following terms and
conditions:
a. A park site plan, developed in cooperation with the Parks and
Recreation Department staff, must be submitted to the City
Manager or his designee for review. A site plan approved by the
Director of Parks and Recreation and Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board is required upon submission of each final plat or
upon application for a building permit, whichever is applicable.
b. Within twelve (12) months from the date of said submission or
application the landowner shall submit detailed plans and
specifications in compliance with the site plan to the City
Manager or his designee for review and approval.
c. All plans and specifications shall meet or exceed the Manual of
Neighborhood Park Improvement Standards in effect at the time
of the submission.
d. If the improvements are constructed on land that has already
been dedicated to and/or is owned by the City, then the
Developer must post Payment and Performance Bonds to
guarantee the payment to subcontractors and suppliers and to
guarantee Developer completes the work in accordance with the
approved plans, specifications, ordinances, other applicable laws
and that City has issued a Certificate of Completion for the
improvements.
e. The construction of all improvements must be completed within
two (2) years from the date of the approval of the plans and
specifications. A final, one-time extension of twelve months may
be granted by the Administrator upon demonstration that said
improvements are at least 50% constructed.
cult: (documents and settingslllindgren.cstxllocal settingsltemplxpgrpwtselpreliminary revised ordinance july, 06.doc
1/18/07
ORDINANCE NO. Page 7
f. Completion and Acceptance - Park development will be
considered complete and a Certificate of Completion will be
issued after the following requirements are met:
i. Improvements have been constructed in accordance with
the Approved Plans
ii. All parkland upon which the improvements have been
constructed has been dedicated as required under this
ordinance
~~~. All manufacturer's warranties have been provided for any
equipment
g_Upon issuance of a Certificate of Completion, Landowner warrants the
improvements for a period of one (I) year as per the requirements in
the Manual of Neighborhood Park Improvements Standards.
•
talc: (documents and settingsllltndgren.cstxllocal settingsltemplxpgrpwiselpreliminary revised ordinance july, 06.doc
1/18/07
• ORDINANCE NO. Page 8
h~The developer shall be liable for any costs required to complete
park development if:
iv. Developer fails to complete the improvements in
accordance with the Approved Plans
v. Developer fails to complete any warranty work
4. Reimbursement for City Acquired Parkland
The City may from time to time acquire land for parks in or near an area of
actual or potential development. If the City does acquire park land in a park
zone, the City may require subsequent parkland dedications for that zone to
be in Fee-in Lieu-of-Land only. This will be to reimburse the City for the
cost(s) of acquisition. Once the City has been reimbursed entirely for all
such parkland within a park zone, this Section shall cease to apply.
10-C Prior Dedication or Absence of Prior Dedication
If a dedication requirement arose prior to enactment of this Section 10, that
dedication requirement shall be controlled by the ordinance in effect at the
time such obligation arose, except that additional dedication shall be
• required if the actual density of structures constructed upon property is
greater than the former assumed density. Additional dedication shall be
required only for the increase in density and shall be based upon the ratio
set forth in Section 10.B. (Credit shall be given for land dedicated or fees
paid pursuant to prior parkland Ordinance Nos. 690, 983 or 2546.)
10-D Comprehensive Plan Considerations
The Recreation, Park and Open Space Master Plan is intended to provide the
College Station Parks and Recreation Advisory Board with a guide upon
which to base its recommendations. Because of the need to consider specific
characteristics in the site selection process, the park locations indicated on
the Plan are general. The actual locations, sizes, and number of parks will
be determined when development occurs. The Plan will also be used to
locate desirable park sites before development occurs, and those sites may
be acquired by the City or received as donations.
Park Zones are established by the City's Comprehensive Plan, in the Park
and Open Space element and are configured to indicate service areas for
neighborhood parks. Zone boundaries are established that follow key
topographic features such as major thoroughfares, streams, and city limit
lines. The Park Zones are shown in Appendix II. Community Park Districts
are formed by aggregating multiple Park Zones. These districts are shown in
• Appendix III.
cult: (documents and settingslllindgren.cstxllocal setttngsltemplzpgrpwiselpreliminary revised ordinance july, 06.doc
1/18/07
• ORDINANCE NO. Page 9
10-E Special Fund; Right to Refund
1. All parkland fees will be deposited in a fund referenced to the park
zone or community park district involved. Funds deposited into a
particular park zone fund or community park district may only be
expended for land or improvements in that zone or district.
2. The City shall account for all fees-in-lieu-of land paid under this
Section with reference to the individual plat(s) involved. Any fees paid
for such purposes must be expended by the City within five (5) years
from the date received by the City for acquisition and/or development
of a neighborhood or community park as defined herein. Such funds
shall be considered to be spent on a first-in, first-out basis. If not so
expended, the landowners of the property on the expiration of such
period shall be entitled to a prorated refund of such sum, computed on
a square footage of area basis. The owners of such property must
request such refund within one (1) year of entitlement, in writing, or
such right shall be barred.
10-F Parkland Guidelines and Requirements
. Parks should be easy to access and open to public view so as to benefit area
development, enhance the visual character of the city, protect public safety
and minimize conflict with adjacent land uses. The following guidelines and
requirements shall be used in designing parks and adjacent development.
1. Any land dedicated to the city under this section must be suitable for
park and recreation uses. The dedication shall be free and clear of any
and all liens and encumbrances that interfere with its use for park
purposes. The City Manager or his designee shall determine whether
any encumbrances interfere with park use. Minerals may be reserved
from the conveyance provided that there is a complete waiver of the
surface use by all mineral owners and lessees. A current title report
must be provided with the land dedication. The property owner shall
pay all taxes or assessments owed on the property up to the date of
acceptance of the dedication by the City. A tax certificate from the
Brazos County Tax Assessor shall be submitted with the dedication or
plat.
2. Consideration will be given to land that is in the floodplain or may be
considered "floodable" even though not in a federally regulated
floodplain as long as, due to its elevation, it is suitable for park
improvements. Sites should not be severely sloping or have unusual
• topography which would render the land unusable for organized
recreational activities.
culc:ldocuments and settingslllindgren.cstxllocal settingsltemplxpgrpwiselpreliminary revised ordinance july, 06.doc
1/18/07
. ORDINANCE NO. Page 10
•
•
3. Land in floodplains or designated greenways will be considered on a
two for one basis. Two acres of floodplain or greenway will be equal to
one acre of parkland
4. Where feasible, park sites should be located adjacent to greenways
and/or schools in order to encourage both shared facilities and the
potential co-development of new sites.
5. Neighborhood and community park sites should be adjacent to
residential areas in a manner that serves the greatest number of users
and should be located so that users are not required to cross arterial
roadways to access them.
6. Sites should have existing trees or other scenic elements.
7. Detention /retention areas will not be accepted as part of the required
dedication, but may be accepted in addition to the required dedication.
If accepted as part of the park, the detention /retention area design
must be approved by the City Manager or his designee and must meet
specific parks specifications in the Manual of Neighborhood Park
Improvements Standards.
8. Where park sites are adjacent to Greenways, Schools existing or
proposed subdivisions, access ways may be required to facilitate public
access to provide public access to parks.
9. It is desirable that fifty percent (50%) of the perimeter of a park
should abut a public street.
10-G Consideration and Approval
Any proposal considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission under this
Section shall have been reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board or the City Manager or his designee as provided herein, and a
recommendation given to the Commission. The Commission may make a
decision contrary to the recommendation by a majority vote.
10-H Review of Land Dedication Requirements and Dedication and
Development Fee
The City shall review the Fees established and amount of land dedication
required at least once every three (3) years. The City shall take into account
inflation as it affects land acquisition and park development costs as well as
changes in the City's existing level of service. Fees are authorized to be set
by resolution of the City Council.
10-I Warranty Required:
culc: (documents and settingslllindgren.cstxllocal settingsltemplxpgrpwiselprelimtnary revised ordinance july, 06.doc
1/18/07
t
ORDINANCE NO.
Page 11
All materials and equipment provided to the City shall be new unless
otherwise approved in advance by the City Manager or his designee and that
all work will be of good quality, free from faults and defects, and in
conformance with the designs, plans, specifications, and drawings, and
recognized industry standards. This warranty, any other warranties express
or implied, and any other consumer rights, shall inure to the benefit of the
City only and are not made for the benefit of any party other than the City.
All work not conforming to these requirements, including but not limited to
unapproved substitutions, may be considered defective.
This warranty is in addition to any rights or warranties expressed or implied
by law.
Where more than a one (I) year warranty is specified in the applicable plans,
specifications, or submittals for individual products, work, or materials, the
longer warranty shall govern.
This warranty obligation shall be covered by any performance or payment
bonds tendered in compliance with this Ordinance.
• Defective Work Discovered During Warranty Period. If any of the work is
found or determined to be either defective, including obvious defects, or
otherwise not in accordance with this ordinance, the designs, plans,
drawings or specifications within one (I) year after the date of the issuance
of a certificate of Final Completion of the work or a designated portion
thereof, whichever is longer, or within one (I) year after acceptance by the
City of designated equipment, or within such longer period of time as may be
prescribed by law or by the terms of any applicable special warranty required
by this ordinance, Developer shall promptly correct the defective work at no
cost to the City.
During the applicable warranty period and after receipt of written notice from
the City to begin corrective work, Developer shall promptly begin the
corrective work. The obligation to correct any defective work shall be
enforceable under this code of ordinances. The guarantee to correct the
defective work shall not constitute the exclusive remedy of the City, nor shall
other remedies be limited to the terms of either the warranty or the
guarantee.
If within twenty (20) calendar days after the City has notified Developer of a
defect, failure, or abnormality in the work, Developer has not started to
make the necessary corrections or adjustments, the City is hereby
authorized to make the corrections or adjustments, or to order the work to
be done by a third party. The cost of the work shall be paid by Developer.
cult: (documents and settingsl[lindgren.cstxllocal settingsltemplxpgrpwiselpreliminary revised ordinance july, 06.doc
1/18/07
ORDINANCE NO. Page 12
The cost of all materials, parts, labor, transportation, supervision, special
instruments, and supplies required for the replacement or repair of parts and
for correction of defects shall be paid by Developer, its contractors, or
subcontractors or by the surety.
The guarantee shall be extended to cover all repairs and replacements
furnished, and the term of the guarantee for each repair or replacement
shall be one (I) year after the installation or completion. The one (I) year
warranty shall cover all work, equipment, and materials that are part of the
improvements made under this section of the ordinance.
culc.•Idocuments and settingslllindgren.cstxllocal settingsltemplxpgrpwtselprelimrnary revised ordinancejuly, 06.doc
1/18/07
•
ORDINANCE NO.
Page 13
APPENDIX I
PROPOSED PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE METHODOLOGY
2006 REVIEW
DRAFT 5/01 /06
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK REQUIREMENTS
1. Land Requirements for Neighborhood Parks
The current level of service is one (1) acre per 276 people.
2006 Total Population - 77,261.
2.80 Persons per Household (PPH) for Single Family and 2.28 PPH for Multi-Family based on
Census information for owner and renter occupied units.
Single Family Multi-Family
276 people / 2.80 PPH = 98 DUs 276 people / 2.28 PPH= 121 DUs
1 Acre per 98 DUs I Acre per 121 DUs
II. Neighborhood Park Acquisition Costs (Determines Fee in Lieu of Land)
Illustrative One (1) acre costs $20, 000 to purchase. (The actual cost is based on the current fair
market value of the land.)
Single Familv Multi-Family
$20,000 /98 DUs = $204 per DU $20,000 / 121 DUs = $165 per DU
•
III. Neighborhood Park Development Costs (Determines Fee for Development)
• The cost of improvements in an average Neighborhood Park in College Station is $576,000.8
• One Neighborhood Park serves 2,207 people, based on a total city population of 77,261 being
served by 35 parks (count includes neighborhood parks and 6 mini parks).
• It costs $234 per person to develop an average intergenerational neighborhood park.
Single Familv Multi-Familv
$234 x 2.80 PPH = $655 per DU $234 x 2.28 PPH = $533 per DU
IV. Total Neighborhood Park Fee (Illustrative: (This will vary according to the current value of
the tract of land.)
Single Familv
$204 + $655 = $859
Multi-Familv
$165 + $533 = $698
cult: (documents and settingslllindgren.cstxllocal settingsltemplxpgrpwiselpreltminary revised ordinance july, 06.doc
(/18/07
• ORDINANCE NO.
COMMUNITY PARK REQUIREMENTS
I. Land Requirements for Community Parks
Page 14
The current level of service is one (1) acre per 285 people.
2006 Total Population - 77,261
III.
2.80 Persons per Household (PPH) for Single Family and 2.28 PPH for Multi-Family based on
Census information for owner and renter occupied units.
Single Familv Multi-Family
285 people / 2.80 PPH = 101 DUs 285 people / 2.28 PPH= 125 DUs
1 Acre per 101 DUs I Acre per 125 Dus
Community Park Acquisition Costs (Determines Fee in Lieu of Land)
(Illustrative) One (1) acre costs $20, 000 to purchase. (The actual cost is based on the current
fair market value of the land.)
Single Familv Multi-Familv
$20,000 / 101 DUs = $198 per DU $20,000 / 125 DUs = $160 per DU
Community Park Development Costs (Determines Fee for Development)
• The cost of providing basic infrastructure improvements in an average Community Park in
College Station is $2.5 million.°
• One Community Park serves 9,658 people, based on a total City population of 77,261 being
served by eight (8) community parks.
• It costs $259 per person to develop an average community park.
Single Familv Multi-Familv
$259 x 2.80 PPH = $725 per DU $259.00 x 2.28 PPH = $590 per DU
IV. Total Community Park Fee (Illustrative: This will vary according to the current fair market
value of the tract of land.)
Single Familv
$198 + $725 = $923
Multi-Familv
$160 + $590 = $750
talc: (documents and settingslllindgren.cstxllocal settingsltemplxpgrpwiselpreliminary revised ordinance July, 06.doc
1/18/07
• ORDINANCE NO. Page 15
Footnote a
NE IGHBORHOOD PARK COST ESTIMATES WINTER 2005
1. Basketball Court $35,000
2. 6' Sidewalk @ $5.00 per SF x 4000 LF $120,000
3. Handicap Accessible Ramp x 2 $2,000
4. Bridge (Average 30') $30,000
5. Picnic Unit (slab, table, trash can, grill) @ $3,000 x 2 $6,000
6. Shelter & Slab (2 picnic tables w/trash cans) $34,000
7. Area Lights (12' ht.) @ $3,000 x 20 $60,000
8. 2' x 8' Park Sign (Cylex) and Keystone Planter Bed $4,000
9. Benches (painted steel) with slab @ $2,000 x 4 $8,000
10. Bicycle Rack $1,000
11. 50 Trees (30-45 gal. installed) w/Irrigation @ $350 $17,000
11. Lawn Irrigation (average area) $3,000
. 12. Drinking Fountain (concrete -handicap accessible, dual height, dog dish) $7,500
13. Water Meter 1.5" $1,000
14. Electric Meter/Panel $2,000
15. Finish Sodding, Grading & Seeding $3,000
16. Drain Lines @ $15 LF (Average 100') $1,500
17. Swing Set w/Rubber & Gravel Mix $10,000
18. Playground w/Concrete base & Rubber Surfacing $50,000
19. Playground Shade Cover $15,000
20. Galvanized Fence @ $35 LF 2,500' $87,500
21. Pond $30,000
Sub Total $469,500
10% Contingency $46,950
Total $516,450
cult: (documents and settingslllindgren.cstxlloca! settingsltemplzpgrpwiselpreliminary revised ordinance july, 06.doc
1/18/07
• ORDINANCE NO. Page 16
Footnote b
COMMUNITY PARK PLANNING GUIDELINES
May 2006
A typical community park in College Station is designed to serve the needs of residents from several
neighborhoods located within a one half to three miles radius. These parks are generally 25 to 70 acres in size.
However, larger and smaller community parks may be developed to meet specific requirements of a particular
area of town.
Community parks, by their nature, serve both active and passive leisure needs of the residents. The
acquisition and development of the "basic" infrastructure and facilities for the passive usage of these community
parks is based upon the demand from new residents and should be addressed through the Parkland Dedication
Ordinance requirements.
The development of facilities for active use programs, such as swimming pools, sports complexes,
recreation centers and other similar improvements are the responsibility of the entire community. These facilities
should be developed with specific funding approval through general obligation bond elections or City Council
approved authorizations as needed.
~ ~
~~
The "basic" infrastructure and facilities in a typical College Station community park are likely to be:
Playground Areas w/shade covers $ 120,000
Group picnic pavilion with restrooms $ 750,000
Concrete walking trails, lights, benches, fountains (per mile) $ 500,000
Picnic tables, trash receptacles and furnishings $ 50,000
Lighted tennis courts (two) $ 140,000
Lighted basketball court $ 50,000
Roads and parking (200 spaces) $ 500,000
Landscape improvements $ 250,000
Design Fees $ 140,000
TOTAL PLANNING ESTIMATE $2,500,000
Each community park varies in size, design and facilities based upon the needs of the residents. These guidelines
are developed to serve as a base line for planning future community parks for College Station.
•
culc: (documents and settingslllindgren.cstxllocal settingsltemplxpgrpwiselprelrminary revised ordinance july, 06.doc
(/18/07
•
PROPOSED SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE REVISIONS
JULY 2006
The Parkland Dedication Ordinance states that its fee structure should be revised every
three years. The last fee revision was approved in January, 2002.
In January, 2006, a joint subcommittee was formed to make recommendations for new
revisions. The subcommittee was comprised of three Parks & Recreation Advisory
Board members, three Planning & Zoning Commission members, a representative of the
Greenway's Council, and a representative active in the development field.
The subcommittee recommends that three primary revisions be incorporated into the Park
Land Dedication Ordinance:
1. The basis for establishing the value of land should be changed from a fixed
amount ($20,000 in the current Ordinance) to the appraised fair market
value of the land.
• 2. The fee for neighborhood park development should be increased to reflect
the increases in development costs that have occurred since the last revision.
3. The ordinance should be extended to include the cost of providing basic
community park infrastructure as well as the cost of neighborhood parks.
The following commentary is included as background material for the proposed
ordinance revisions.
•
1
• BACKGROUND REGARDING PROPOSED REVISIONS
The Principle of the Land Dedication Ordinance
The land dedication requirement may be viewed as a type of user fee. The intent
is that the cost of new parks should be paid for by the landowner, developer or new
homeowners who are responsible for creating the need for new park amenities, rather
than raising taxes on existing community residents to pay for these amenities.
Neighborhood and community parks are designed to serve only those people in
the area proximate to them. Thus, park amenities of this type in newly developing parts
of the city make no positive contribution to the quality of life for existing residents,
suggesting there is no reason why they should be asked to raise their taxes to pay for
them.
The Legal Parameters which guide Park Dedication requirements.
The legal parameters were effectively codified by two decisions handed down by
the U.S. Supreme Court. The two cases are Nollan v California Coastal Commission
(1987) and Dolan v City of Tigard (199.
. The Nollan decision confirmed the "required nexus" role which requires there be
a rational nexus (close geographical connection) between the demand stemming from a
development and park amenities developed with resources provided by the developer.
This criterion is met in College Station by the city establishing 16 park planning zones.
The proposed revised ordinance specifies "fees paid...must be used only for development
or acquisition of neighborhood and community parks located within the same Zone as the
development."
The Dolan decision governs the amount of land dedication that communities can
require developers to provide. The Supreme Court ruled there must be a "rough
proportionality" between the requirements imposed on a developer and the needs
projected to be forthcoming from the development. The most widely used and accepted
approach to meeting the "rough proportionality" criterion is to assume that new residents
will require the same level of service as existing residents in the community. This
approach has been used to calculate the dedication requirement in the proposed revised
ordinance.
Implications of not revising the Dedication requirement.
The population projections for College Station which are the basis for the revised
fee calculations used in the ordinance, are shown in Attachment 1. One consequence of
the ongoing rapid growth of College Station is the need for future major investment both
• in new parks land and in new amenities on those lands. The magnitude of this investment
is projected in Attachment 2. It shows that based on the city's best estimate of population
2
• growth in the next 10 years an investment for neighborhood and community parks of $26
million will be needed merelymaintain the city's current level of service. This
investment will not increase the quality of life for existing College Station residents.
Attachment 3 shows that the existing ordinance requirements are likely to raise
approximately $8 million of the $26 million, leaving a residual of approximately $18
million to be funded by existing taxpayers over the next 10 years. These costs reflect
only "basic" facilities and infrastructure amenities in community parks. Residents will be
expected to pay for any active recreation amenities in these community parks, such as
athletic fields, swimming pools, tennis courts, recreation centers, etc., through bond
referenda. The proposed revised ordinance requirements have been calculated to produce
this approximately $18 million so existing taxpayers do not have to subsidize this growth
and be burdened with being taxed to meet these costs.
There appear to be three broad courses of action available to the city:
(i) Accept a lower level of investment and, thus, a reduction in the prevailing
level of neighborhood and community park amenities. This would result
in a coincident deterioration in the quality of life offered by the
community and, thus, make it more difficult to attract high quality, high
paying businesses which would enhance the city's tax base.
(ii) Leave the existing ordinance requirements unchanged and ask residents to
• raise their taxes by approximately $18 million in the next 10 years to
retain the current level of service.
(iii) Implement the recommendations proposed in the revised ordinance so the
current level of park amenities can be retained without burdening existing
city residents with higher taxes.
Increases in Cost of Services
In the past two decades, many communities have undertaken fiscal impact
analyses designed to identify the costs and revenues associated with different types of
development (residential, commercial/industrial, farm, forest/open space. A recent
review of 98 studies done by over 50 different researchers in 21 different states reported
that for every $1 million received in revenues from residential developments, the median
cost to serve them was $1.16 million. The costs referred to those incurred by all local
public taxing entities (e.g. city, county and school district). Among those 98
communities, there was not a single instance where taxes from residential development
were sufficient to cover the costs of servicing those residents.
In the early 1990s, Mr. Jim Calloway, who was College Station's Planning
Director, informed the council that an analysis he had done indicated the "break-even
point" in College Station was approximately $140,000. That is, homes appraised at a
lower amount cost more to service than they generated in taxes, while homes exceeding
• that value were "profitable" to the community. Given inflation over the past 15 years,
this break-even point will now be higher -say $250,000. ("Empty nesters" are a niche
• population cohort for whom the break-even value will be substantially lower because
they have no children in public schools).
Thus, even if new development pays the capital costs associated with meeting its
need for new park amenities, it is possible that College Station taxpayers will continue to
subsidize new development.
•
•
4
ATTACHMENT 1
College Station Population Assumptions:
1. The population estimates and projections used in Attachments 1 and 2 were
provided by the Planning and Development Services Department.
There are two sources available for estimating the current population:
(i) Residential Certificates of Occupancy that are issued by the city each
month. This approach estimates the city's current population at 82,337.
Development Services notes these "numbers are a pretty high estimate all
things considered."
(ii) The Census Bureau which collects building permit data. This approach
estimates the city's current population is 72,186. Development Services
believes "they underestimate the growth that's happening here.
Given these parameters, the numbers in Attachments 1 and 2 are based
upon a population of 77,000 which is the mid-point between these high and low
estimates
2. The Planning and Development Services' estimate of the city's 2015 population
are:
Low: 95,000
Medium: 117,000
High: 142,000
The medium projection of 117,000 was used for the calculations in Attachments 1
and 2, suggesting that the increase in the city's population will be 40,000 (117,000 -
77,000) by 2015.
3. The existing ratio between multifamily and single family dwellings is 56:44.
Planning and Development Services anticipate that future development is likely to be
closer to 50:50. Hence, the 50:50 ratio was used in Attachments 2 and 3.
•
5
! ATTACHMENT 2
Estimate of 10 Year Capital Cost requirements for Neighborhood and Community Parks
(Based on a projected increase of 40,000 population by 2015 while maintaining current
levels of service).
New Neighborhood Parks:
• Current level of Service = 1 acre per 276 people
• 40,000/276 = 145 acres
• 145 acres @ $20,000 per acre $2,900,000
• Average park size of 8 acres means 18 new parks @ 576,000
each for improvements. $10,368,000
New Community Parks:
$13,268,000
• Current level of service = 1 acre per 285 people
• 40,000/285 = 140 acres
@ • 140 acres @ $20,000 per acre $2,800,000
• 4 new parks @ $2.5 million each for "basic infrastructure" $10,000,000
Total Estimated Capital Cost for 2006-2015 period
•
$12,800,000
$26,068,000
6