The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/19/2006 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning CommissionFILE COPY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ' Planning er DrvelopmrntServierr AGENDA Workshop Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, January 19, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. ' Council Chambers City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 1. Call the meeting to order. 2. Discussion of minor and amending plats. * KFO Addition Final Plat -Case #05-500166 3. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. 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) 5. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings. - January 24, 2006, ~ Planning & Zoning and Parks & Recreation advisory Board Subcommittee Meeting - February 9, 2006 ~ Joint Workshop with Ciry Council - Apri122-26, 2006 ~ APA National Conference, San Antonio, Texas - October 18-20, 2006 ~- APA State Conference, Corpus Christi, Texas 6. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the process of scheduling, advertising and updating the Unified Development Ordinance. 7. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 8. Adjourn. Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission, College Station, Texas will be held on the 19th day of 7anuary, 2006, at 5:30 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda. Posted this the day of January 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.aov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on January .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) i-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.4ov. Planning and Zoning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19. • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION • _ Planning crDevelopment Services AGENDA Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, January 19, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, College Station City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 1. Call meeting to order. 2. Hear Citizens. At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to address the Commission on planning and zoning issues not already scheduled on tonight's agenda. The citizen presentations will be limited to three minutes in order to accommodate everyone who wishes to address the Commission and to allow adequate time for completion of the agenda items. 'The Commission will receive the information, ask city staff to look into the matter, or will place the matter on a future agenda for discussion. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give your name and address for the record.) • All matters listed under Item 2, Consent Agenda, are considered routine by the Planning and Zoning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. These items include preliminary and final plats, 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 - of the Williamsgate Subdivision Phase 1 consisting of 33 lots on approximately 8.54 acres, generally located on the north side of Rock Prairie Road West at the City Limits line. Case #05-500013 (JR/JN) 3..2 Presentation, possible action and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Las Palomas consisting of 27 lots on 8.79 acres generally located at Cain Road and Jones-Butler Road in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Case #05- 500219 (CH/Jl~ Regular Agenda. 4. Possible action and discussion on request(s) for absence from meetings. • No absence requests submitted. 5. Presentation, possible action and discussion on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance from Section l2-K.2 (Block • Lengths) of the Subdivision Regulations for Indian Lakes Phase VIII, and presentation possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Indian Lakes Phase VIII, consisting of 36 lots on 69.67 acres, generally located southeast of the intersection of Indian Lakes Drive and Chaco Canyon Drive in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Case #05-500231 (JP/CC) 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Rezoning for 2075 North Forest Parkway consisting of approximately 9.95 acres of the Morgan Rector League generally located on the south side of North Forest Parkway just east of Highway 6 frontage road, from A-O Agricultural Open to R-1 Single Family. Case #05-500234 (~~) 8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Rezoning for 2407 Rock Prairie Road consisting of one lot on 1.787 acres generally located at the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6. Case #OS-500241 (CH/LB) 9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment by amending the Land Use Plan for 28.01 acres of Tract 2.11 of the Robert Stevenson Survey, A-54, generally located southeast 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) • 10. 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 #OS-500044 (JP) 11. 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) 12. Adjourn. Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission, College Station, Texas will be held on the195th day of January, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda. Posted this the day of January, 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 January _, 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.eov. Planning and Zoning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19. • • C] r~ b a~ o ^'+ U ~°. ~ A" ~ A O N !f' O ~ `~' N ~' O • z O `*" ~ ~ Rt ~~yy y }y C~ ~~ ~ •~ b ~ a v rp ~o V ~ ~p a. N o "v ~ .~ .~ a bq +' y b ~ gyp' ;~ ~ a. o ~ ~, ~ ~ a ~o ~, .~ p, o ,~ ~n aki o~ ... 'd o ~ a ~ ~ ~ o a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~~ aai U b q ~ ~ o ,~ o ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ '~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U O O~ •w. ~ ~ ~ +~+ O U Q ~ V] ~ ~ o .~ a ~I ~, ~ ~ Q , r C%] ~ ~ ~. ~ U ~~ ~ ~ a ~ _ •~' a o •ti ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ U ~~ ~ %3 O ,c ~ U 3 U asi ..wC7 °' w b .. ~ ~ o U ~ ~ ~ o a~ ~ U 'd c~ ~ °~ ~ ~° b ~~ ~ ~w 3~ H N O O O ~ pp ~ N N p a w w ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ chi v ti ~~ C O ~ I I ? U ~-. „ ~ b a •~ ~ ~• C7 ~ ~ -"~ ~ ~• ~ .-. a a vy~ ~ .U. ~ U F ,U U R. ~ ~ ~ c .a v~ a~ ~ A ~x ~~ O ~ ~ ~ q .v ~, o CJ U 'S U U ~ U ~ U, ~ ~ o a, •.~ a ~ U ~ .~ ~ N OO ~ ~ ~~' a~ rx ~ ,~ ~. .~ ~ ~ ~ °' -d ~ w ~>~>`~ ~~oo ~ ~ .~ Q N M cr +~ O ~ ~ o .° A. v~ ~ U ° 5 ~ a b a~ ~ '^ o - 'ZS ~ ~ `o '~ o o a. b4 .~ ~ ~ c0 ,~ rn '~~ ' q bo bA c~ N b O O0 ~, w~ +:. ..~ ~ N~ h ~ yy ~ Q U ~ ~ ~ .-i ~ ~ y ~~ ~ N b ' ~ ~ ~ U ~ 'w aai ~ '" . C ate' ~ -° `~~w a ~ ~ U ~ w ~ a ~ ~~ > • •~ .U P, U U Q Q ~ 0 q ct O o ~ . H a ~ ~ '~ io ~ ... ~ ~ ~ p 'S ~ ~ s C7w t~C~7 a ~ ~D t~ o0 ~ U ~ U R' ~ ~. o ~ ~ 0., ~ .y ~ d ~~ o,~ ~~og U ~ N T. U ~ ~ ~ '~o0 0 ~ ~ a ox.~ ~~,, ~~ U '~ '~ ~q ~~ C7 u~ N r r F- a v a 0 m a • r~ • ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ U - ~ O ~ ai a +~ ~ ~ o U 'o •~ V] °~° ~' it R Uj a N as ao U •~ N o 3~ a ~~~ ~. N ~w .~~~ ~~ ~~~°~~ A ~ ~ a~~ ¢ O 3~ ~ A. ~ ~ ~ a ~ o U ~ ~2S ~ Gq N ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a. a ° ~ o 1 , ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ w ° ~ ~ ~ • Z ~ ~ a -d ~ o ~ ~ ~'o ~ U p ~ ~ U ~ ~, N N ~ U p ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ y y ~ ~ O ~ c~ ~ ~" " ~ ~ ~.r ~ 0 c ~„ f~ ~ P~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ¢ Q • ~ ~ bA A O ~~ ~ RI ~ ~ 'b FN~ vyi 'L~ yN~ vi 'L7 N v~ 'L7 v R. o °' ~ o a .~ o~ .~ o a .~ a ~ •~ ~4 W U a 'b ~-. U a 'b U a •b U a 'T~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~.o~ ~ ~~^~ ~ ~~~ ~ V ~ o ~, ~ a ~ -d o ~, ~ a ~ a ~ ~ a ~ o ~, ~ a ~ b ' V~ o ~ ~ ~ ,U ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~i, ~ a bb °b ~b °b bb °~, bb °.~ ~ V y~ 0 V ~' b4 O V y OA O V `n ~pq O ~ ~ ~s~b ~s~b ~ .... ~s~b ~ ~ ~o~b .~ p ~ ~U+ L" U w O .~ ~ ~ .b v i ~ p 'C NN d U I_y y ~ Q ~ '~ O ~ ,~ a~~ U a ~ , „ ~ b '~ bq '~ H w VI •~ a '~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ Q!w° A Avg Ac+; a w E~UU ~wA N M ~' ~ N d' 0 0 u: F- v 0 N m a • • • w~ ~~ o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 c 0 ~ ~O -' O n N ~ N N N Q ^ ~ o o ~ ,~,~ a ~ ~ N N N r, ~ ~ I w N [~ ~ A ~ N U ~ • ~ ~ ~ O ~ o ~ ~ U N ~ ,~ ~' o E~ U ,b ~ . ~ a ~ on . .~ ~ y ~ ~ o~ °'~ 0 >~ o a°~i yo ~ b > ~ F-, A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o a a i~ O a, U o : a s o °° ~ '~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ U ~ • w ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~' ¢ ~ ~.c~ x H ~ WW x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^'y ~ W y ~ a ~ ~ a ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ A C ~ U U U U U U U ~ • ~ ~ ~ 0 a, o ~ V ~ a a~ ;.~~ ~ .., ~° ~ W A~o V o a ~ •° o 0 C/~ •~ ~„~ a ~ •.~ U ° `~ ~ p ~ ~~~ ~ ~ p'~ ~ab~ o ~ a ~ .=~ a U i ~ ~'~~~ ~ z ~ U ~ p. ~ • _ w b b ,~ 3 °~ ~ ~ „ ~ °A A ~ .~ •~ a~ a~ ~ ,b r, ~ ~ ~ o a~ ~ ° U ~ a .~ an .~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ° ~ :: ''~ U a ~ a ~ ° ~ p U ~ 3 ~ ~ Ey x. ° ~ ogn ~ • ~ on ° v ~ ~ o ~ a ,~ U o ~ ~ °~ ~ U U aai o w _ 3wa ~x xa v~ as A3 x~ H ~c~x ~° o~Wx Zw° ~ ~ oo ri ~, d _. Gq U U U A A A 0 0 N r e- F- 'O 7 v 0 M m t6 a • • ., ~ .~ .°a~ '~ ~' z z o •o U ~, b .~ .~ „a \ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ . N ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ Uy U 0 A O N y ~ ~ A A ~ ~ 0 ~ y ~ 00 b ~ 0 .b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ o b ~ o o V ~ ~x ~x ~ C w ~ ~ I~ '~ ~ ~ c ,,:5 ~ x O ~ 0 .~ C4 b ~ ~~~., .4 v "'" V ~ w ~ U Q a ~ . A y .~ o p N O ~ °~ U ~ ~ . ~ f~ •,•~ o +~ ,r ~ N y a o a a o ~ ~ a ~ o . ~ a a ~ U "~'~ ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a> ~o ~ on w ~ o ~ 0 ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ti ~ ti 0 0 r- ii t- m o. 0 v rn a Consent Agenda 3.1 Presentation, possible- action and discussion on a Final Plat - of the - Williamsgate Subdivision Phase 1 consisting of 33 lots on approximately 8.54 acres, generally located on the north side of Rock Prairie Road West at the City Limits line. Case #05-500013 (~~ MEMORANDUM Report Date: January 4, 2006 Meeting Date: January 19, 2006 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Reeves, Project Manager Email: jreeves@cstx.gov SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT -RESIDENTIAL for WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP) Item: Presentation, possible action and discussion on a Final Plat - of the Williamsgate Subdivision Phase 1 consisting of 33 lots on approximately 8.54 acres, generally located on the north side of Rock Prairie Road West at the City Limits line. Applicant: Greg Taggart/MDG, Agent for property owner. • Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends a royal of the Final Plat as pp submitted. Item Summary: This item under consideration is a Final Plat for Phase I of the Williamsgate Subdivision, a single family residential development. This plat falls under Section 12 of the Subdivision Regulations for Rural Subdivision. The subject property will be served by Wellborn Water. The City of College Station will be supplying the sewer and BTU will supply the electric. The Final Plat for phase I is in compliance with the Preliminary Plat. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan shows this area as Single Family Medium Density (3-6 dwelling units/acre). The density of the proposed development is 5.2 dwelling units/acre. The tract has access from Rock Prairie Road West, which is a Minor Arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan. Item Background: This property was annexed in 2002 and rezoned to R-1 Single Family Residential on June 10, 2004. The Preliminary Plat was approved June 17, 2004. Impact Fees: This development is located within sewer impact fee area 03-01, Steeplechase. The current fee for this area is $300.00 per Living Unit Equivalent. • • Parkland Dedication Fees: The Parks Board recommends fee in Lieu of Land: $198 per dwelling unit (DU). Development Fee: $358 per DU. The total park land dedication would be $18,348. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Application 4. Copy of Final Plat • • _~.. ~ ~,z Q ~_, ;um ~I L b ..~ . o ~ ~~~ h In ~ ~~~6 iJ~i C_9 " H ~~ 4- JOd "~ h , ors e --~. "~:~ h h .J ,-" ~ __ ~~i N - ti u; ~ ~~ ~ ti °' P L ~h ti ti a~' ~O i Q~ 0~ ~~ ~~ 0 Q L~ b \~~ \~h .. y e ~~\ o ~ \ti~ N V `~~, ~-,nf LAS ~~` "~' ("ti ~2;'J --- i7;:~ ~~ ry ~ in ~- ' ~ ~- ~~ ~^ n ~ / c-- L ~. ~i '~`~ ~--' u n~ l; i~~ C ~~~ ~l i,,;~, ~~ ~ '=~ e y, !-~ ._5 _~~ _:~ ~5 i7l} ~~~ .___ ~uf~~ ,~ JIJi !j O _ v b~~ '~'~,b~ ~ a ~JO~ i b~ ti O Q ~~ ~M1 h h z~ll Y I U //~ 1~1 ,~ V R ~~ Q ~iJ ti0 ~b S ~~ 20F FO V1U<.~fl ~"s ~' • C:I'i`1' O1~ COt.LI~GC S"1"ATIOI`1 I'lannirtg t~"Di~vc/opmtnt Srrvirer FINAL PLAT APPLICATION G~ (Check one) ^ Minor ^ Amending Final ^ Vacating ^ Replat ($300.00) ($300.00) ($400.00) ($400.00) ($600.00)* *Includes public hearing fee The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P8Z Commission consideration. MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: o i ~ Filing Fee (see above) NOTE: Multiple Sheets - $55.00 per additional sheet sec ariance Request to Subdivision Regulations ~ $100 (if applicable) ~ `~ Development Permit Application Fee of $200.00 (if applicable). (rev ~~ou,S~y S ~ ~ e ~ Infrastructure Inspection Fee of $600.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is Being constructed) ~` /' Application completed in full (J ~~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 & Recrea 'on B ard, please provide pfoof of approval (if applicable). S'-e ~ (~,r~~e.L ~'w~ I",.qtr-„ P~o~,~ - ~~/~s Koo.~f //~w~. Date of Preapplication Conference: ~ P ~ l L Z~ 0 4 NAME OF SUBDIVISION ~~~ Q~ ~ ~ SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBD VISION (Lot & Block) ~.~ 1~Qt/! G APPLICANTIPR/O~JECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): C Name G'cr°~ ~ Q ~(,c./-~ ~ ~1.T7l~ Street Address V oC Sd ~ L'~~1cQ S (~tx •. State Z//,,i~~p Code ~?~~ Phone Number lP~"l'~ S3S~j ,_ PROPERTY OWNER' I,~ F RMATI (',, ~ ) Name ~~J~ G ~ "~tGt,S011 C% Street Address S ~ ©CJ ~'T~ 'rt ` f State -~ Zip Code ~ 7 ~~ S Phone Number ~G~~' ~0~9 • ARCHITECT O~ Name Street Address. State ~INEE/~R'S I~NyFORMA' { v~ D/Affa.1 S S{G. v/~` city CSt E-Mail Address ~^-~- ~ Fax Number ~D 3 " 3 S~i.R~t ~ G(/r"6/~"ass y~ city C S E-Mail Rddress p Fax Number (o ~ 10 ~ ~O~ FOR OFF CE USE P&Z CASE NO.: DATE SUBMITTED: ~~~~ Zip Code .Phone Number 6/13/03 City E-Mail Address Fax Number 1 of 5 `/~ Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume. and Page # Acreage ~ Total Property ~ • Total # Of Lots ~ -O-W Acreage •~~ 2 ~ Existing Use: f ~ ~ Proposed Use: ~S L `Ct, ~ -"'" Number Of Lots By Zoni g District _~~ /,_,.~'~ ~ / / Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: ~~~ ~-~ ~ Floodplain Acreage N ~ /Q' A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and approved Master Plan and/or Preliminary Plat (if applicable): Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations & Reason For Same: (~' Requested Oversize Participation: Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: Streets ~~r Sidewalks Sanitary Sewer Lines Water Lines Channels Storm Sewers ~^ 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 ~ $556 = $ j $t 3~ l we ~ (date} Approved by Parks & Recreation Board NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies.-that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct, and complete. The undersigned hereby requests approval by the City of College Station of the above-ident~ed final plat and attests that this request does not amend any covenants or restrictions associated with this plat. ~^ Sgnat and T' e ~n~ ~a~~ ~~u~r~ n Date 6/13J03 Z of 5 Consent Agenda 3.2 Presentation, possible action and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Las Palomas consisting of 27 lots on 8.79 acres generally located at Cain Road and Jones-Butler Road in the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Case #05- 500219 (CH/JN~ STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Crissy Hartl Email: chart)@cstx.gov Report Date: January 6, 2006 Meeting Date: January 19, 2006 Item: Presentation, possible action and discussion on a preliminary plat for Las Palomas consisting of 27 lots on 8.79 acres generally located at Cain Road and Jones-Butler Road in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Applicant: Anthony Jones, Owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. Item Summary: This property is being platted in preparation of a duplex development containing 27 lots on an 8.79 acre tract. The property is located on the west side of Jones-Butler Road across from Cain Road. This plat is in compliance with the City's subdivision regulations. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The property is shown as rural on the • City's Land Use Plan and Jones-Butler Road is a major collector on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. This property is located in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the preliminary plat. The options regarding the preliminary plat are: ^ Approval as submitted or ^ Denial. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Application 4. Infrastructure and Facilities • o~ ~~~ 0 ~~ ' ~~ry Q ~g .- .~ a ~ w ~~ a ~`~ ~~> ~ ti, ~~" ~ O Js~~ a ~~ rn N O O N N a U O .~`Ea ~oNES gJ • N~\r VM\SS /Q/~ ~~G~Stpt\O Li g a ~~6 ~~ 1 ww Nw~/ Y. cR Z a"¢~J~ ~~?E` wwC vT J` L ~0 A O \w w • w Z ~Q ~~~ 0 i~ 7 1 E-Mail Address P&Z CASE NO.: FFI~ErUSE ON~ ~~J ©IE~ COI<.Y.EGE STATION DATE SUBMITTED: ~~~~~^ Fl~xnf~~:d' Lkvclopmenr Strvaes a;~-~- PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION ~ The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P & Z Commission consideration. / MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: / Filing Fee of $400.00. ~~/ariance Request to Subdivision Regulations -• $100 (if applicable) J Application completed in full. Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A revised mylar original must be submitted after staff review.) ne (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. Rezoning Application if zone change is proposed. Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provide proof of approval (if applicable). Date of Preapplication Conference: NAME OF SUBDIVISION ~ECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION I~AS ~A~.o~~gs APPLICANT/PROJ,~CT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name ~77~o~cl Y ~• ~vNe~s Street Address $ZD5 S• FAQL. {?,~7p-p•E(~ City State Zip Code 778~~- E-Mail Address _"t'ohy.~f1G3E~"~7tctit.~.~ .,, Phone Number 1o 93-~G9~ Fax Number ~S~~l PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple owners~~~~ (/ ~~~ Name ~j Street Address State Zip Code Phone Number ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Name Fax Number Street Address - CBI ~ }~os~ S't': • State Zip Code 7?~D 7 Phone Number `~ ~=.3 Z E-Mail Address t City City ~t,~ Fax Number ~l t'o ' ~~ 6/13/03 1 of4 i ~tal Acres Of Subdivision ~ ~ 22 Number Of Lots By Zoning District ~ / Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: •lrr / / _ Floodplain Acreage _ Parkland dedication by acreage or fee? Total # Of Lots ~7 A statement addressing any differences between the Preliminary Plat and approved Master Plan (if applicable) Requested variances to subdivision regulations & reason for same Requested oversize participation ~~va=Nfl «~ tx~ C.~r, ~~ S,EE YAP Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final 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 this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. The undersigned hereby requests approval by the City of College Station of the above identified plat and attests that all respective owners have been identified on this application. Signature j 1 i / R-O-W Acreage l 2 s o5 Date 6/13/03 2 of 4 • INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water required for plat: This development will utilize a Wellborn water main for domestic service and a privately owned water main for fire flow coverage. The following comments represent the requirements the CoCS has made in order to enable the developer to utilize this privately owned water main for fire coverage: 1. A backflow preventer must be installed per TCEQ 290. 2. Fire flow test and report must be performed and submitted. 3. A signed agreement with Edsel Jones must be submitted stating that Edsel Jones is allowing this development to tap onto this line for the use of fire flow coverage forever. 4. A maintenance agreement must be created stating that the HOA for this development will own and maintain this 8" fire line. Sewer required for plat: It is the developer's responsibility to provide this development with CoCS public sanitary sewer service. Street(s) required for plat: Paloma Ridge Dr. and Los Portales Dr. are the proposed residential streets which will provide access to the proposed lots. • Streets/Access: Paloma Ridge Dr. will take access off Jones Butler a major collector. Off-site Easements required for plat: Easements may be required for storm sewer. Drainage: The drainage report must be submitted and approved prior to the final plat going forward to P&Z. The drainage report will be reviewed by the County and the CoCS. In the case that detention is required for this site, the final plat may need to be modified as to allow room for the detention area. Flood Plain: None on site. Impact Fees: None Parkland Dedication Fees: None • Regular Agenda 6 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance from Section 12-K.2 (Block Lengths) of the Subdivision Regulations for Indian Lakes Phase VIII, and presentation possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Indian Lakes Phase VIII, consisting of 3 6 lots on 69.67 acres, generally located southeast of the intersection of Indian Lakes Drive and Chaco Canyon Drive in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Case #05- 500231 (JP/CC) • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Planner Report Date: January 9, 2006 Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov Meeting Date: January 19, 2006 Project Number: 05-00500231 Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance from Section 12-K.2 (Block Lengths) of the Subdivision Regulations for Indian Lakes Phase VIII, and presentation possible action, and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Indian Lakes Phase VIII, consisting of 36 lots on 69.67 acres, generally located southeast of the intersection of Indian Lakes Drive and Chaco Canyon Drive, in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Applicant: Travis Martinek, agent for Smiling Mallard Development, Ltd., property owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat if the variance request is granted by the Commission. Item Summary: This item is for consideration of a variance request to the Subdivision Regulations for block length, and a preliminary plat for a new section of the Indian Lakes development that continues the general pattern of • development in the larger subdivision. The proposed lots range in size from 1.08 acres to 3.49 acres. Section 12-K.2 of the Subdivision Regulations states that the block length shall not exceed 1,500 feet in rural residential subdivisions. In blocks over 800 feet in length, the Planning & Zoning Commission may require access ways to facilitate pedestrian traffic movement. One of the proposed blocks in the subdivision is 1,760 feet in length, requiring a variance of 260 feet. The block length does meet the Brazos County Subdivision Regulations, and will not require a variance from the County. The Subdivision Regulations Section 5-A state that "The Commission may authorize a variance from the regulations when, in their opinion, undue hardship will result from requiring strict compliance. In granting a variance, the Commission shall prescribe only conditions that it deems not prejudicial to the public interest. In making the findings hereinbefore required, the Commission shall take into account the nature of the proposed use of the land involved, the existing used of the land in the vicinity, the number of persons who will reside or work in the proposed subdivision, the possibility that a nuisance will be created, and the probable effect of such variance upon traffic conditions and upon public health, convenience, and welfare of the vicinity. No variance may be granted unless the Commission finds: • 5-A.1 That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of this • chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; 5-A.2 That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; 5-A.3 That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this chapter; and 5-A.4 That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter." Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan shows most of the land in the ETJ to be developed at a rural density (very low density residential development with agricultural and support uses). The City does not control land use in the county, but does share platting authority. Indian Lakes Drive is shown on the Thoroughfare Plan as a major collector. Item Background: A Master Development Plan was approved for the Indian Lakes Subdivision in 2002. Commission Action Options Regarding the Variance Requests: The Commission must consider each variance request prior to approving the preliminary plat. The options for each variance request are: • Approval ^ Denial Commission Action Options Regarding the Preliminary Plat: The Commission has final authority over the preliminary plat. The options regarding the preliminary plat are: ^ Approval ^ Denial Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Application 4. Copy of Preliminary Plat 5. Variance Request Letter z , FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PB~Z CASE NO.: 1~15~'~3 DATE SUBMITTED:.. 1~ ~ g,I 05 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION ~~~~ ~ The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P & Z Commission consideration. MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: X Filing Fee of $400.00. N/A Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations ~ $100 (if applicable) X Application completed in full. X Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A revised mylar original must be sulmmitted after staff review.) N/A One (1) copy of the approved Master Plan if applicable. X A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not. N/A Rezoning Application if zone change is proposed. N/A Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provide proof of approval (if applicable). Date of Preapplication Conference: Unknown AME OF SUBDIVISION: Villages of Indian Lakes Phase Vlll PECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION: End of Indian Lakes Drive APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name: Travis Martinek Street Address: 3608 East 29"' Street, Suite 100 State: Texas Zip Code: 77802 Phone Number: (979) 846-4384 City: Bryan E-Mail Address: tavis@clarkewyndham.com Fax Number: (979) 846-1461 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple owners): Name: Smiling Mallard Development, Ltd. Street Address: 3608 East 29"' Street, Suite 100 Cifiy: Bryan State: Texas Zip Code: 77802 Phone Number: (979) 846-4384 ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Name: McClure & Browne, Inc. Street Address: 1008 Woodcreek Drive, Suite 103 • State: Texas Zip Code: 77845 Phone Number: (979) 693-3838 E-Mail Address: Tavis@clarkewyndham.com Fax Number: (979) 846-1461 City: College Station E-Mail Address: m~lcem@mcclurebrowne.com Fax Number: (979) 593-2554 6/13/03 lofl Total Acres Of Subdivision: 69.97 Total # Of Lots: 36 umber Of Lots By Zoning District: N/A R-O-W Acreage: 9. ~~ ~ Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: N/A Floodplain Acreage: 0.00 Parkland dedication by acreage or fee? N/A A statement addressing any differences between the Preliminary Plat and approved Master Plan (if applicable) None Requested variances to subdivision regulations & reason for same: None Requested oversize participation: None Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat: ACREAGE: # of Acres to be dedicated # of acres in floodplain # of acres in detention # of acres in greenways R FEE IN LIEU OF LAND: # of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 = $ (date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Board The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. The undersigned hereby requests approval by the City of College Station of the above identified plat and attests that all respective owners have been identified on this application. !z `~~ ~.~.--~ Travis Martinek Design & Construction Manager r~ ~~ l~~/6 f oS Date 6/13/03 2 of 2 INDIAN LAKES PHASE 8 -PRELIMINARY PLAT Ds-a~~ VARIANCE REQUEST q .Zn • ~ ~, a o5' ~l The Developer is requesting a Variance consideration for the following items: Maximum Block Length According to the Subdivision Regulations (Chapter 9, Section 12-K.2, Block Lengths), subdivisions are required to plat blocks with lengths not to exceed 1,500 LF. The Developer is requesting a Variance to the Subdivision Regulations to allow for a block length of 1,760 LF, or a 260 LF Variance. The Developer would like to note that the proposed street layout meets the requirements established by the Brazos County Subdivision Regulations. No Variance for block length is required by Brazos County. Response to Subdivision Regulations. Section 5. Variances: 5-A.1: The Developer is requesting the block length variance in order to adequately accommodate the following: • Topography and Drainage - In order to provide for efficient and adequate street and ditch drainage, the Developer has chosen to propose street alignments that follow the existing terrain and limit the amount of cut/fill situations. The proposed plan also intends to utilize existing drainage swales to direct storm water to adjacent stream channels. The street layout presented provides for an efficient dispersion of water from the roadways to the adjacent streams. Other options would require more channeling and additional destruction to existing vegetation and wildlife habitat. • Street Alignment -The proposed layout provides for a more organized alignment of street • intersections. The street layout presented limits the amount of street intersections and provides for a better separation between major points of street intersection as compared to what would result if the block length were reduced (shortening the distance between Chaco Canyon and Mojave Canyon) It is the position of the Developer that the proposed street layout better addresses existing topography/drainage conditions and street alignment and intersection separation issues than other alternatives. 5-A.2: The basis of any land use regulations is to provide a method to insure that the public good is met in every new development within the community. If a developer is willing to create a product that provides adequate streets and drainage in a manner that more appropriately addresses and utilizes the existing site conditions, and provides a suitable quality of life for its inhabitants, as is the case with the proposed subdivision, then the intent of land use regulations has been met. To deprive a developer, who wishes to meet the intent of land use regulation but in a way slightly different than standard procedure, of the ability to turn their vision into reality is a denial of the developer's "enjoyment of a substantial property right." 5-A.3: With the proposed development, the Developer intends to provide adequate streets, drainage, suitable access for emergency vehicles, provide a quality of life desirable to the inhabitants of the subdivision, and create a product consistent with the land use of the surrounding property. Based on this, the proposed subdivision "will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area." 5-A.4: The proposed development "will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area" primarily due to its location within a parent tract that has been previously subdivided into a land use type complimentary to the proposed development. Additional development within • the area is currently being developed in an "orderly" fashion maintaining consistency with the residential land use type initially planned for the area. Page 1 of 1 Regular Agenda 7 Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Rezoning for 2075 North Forest Parkway consisting of approximately 9.95 acres of the Morgan Rector League generally located on the south side of North Forest Parkway just east of Highway 6 frontage road, from A-O Agricultural Open to R-1 Single Family. Case #05-500234 (JR/JN) • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves Report Date: December 27, 2005 Email: jreeves@cstx.gov Meeting Date: January 19, 2006 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action and discussion on a Rezoning for 2075 North Forest Parkway consisting of approximately 9.95 acres of the Morgan Rector League generally located on the south side of North Forest Parkway just east of Highway 6 frontage road, from A-O Agricultural Open to R-1 Single Family. Applicant: Justin Whitworth, property owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the zone request from A-O Agricultural Open to R-1 Single Family. Item Summary: The applicant would like to continue the development of single family homes in this area. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The subject property is located off of North Forest Parkway which is shown on the City's Thoroughfare Plan as a Major • Collector. The property is shown on the City's Comprehensive Plan as Single Family Medium Density which would allow for 3-6 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is bound on the east and west by R-1 Single Family and currently developed as such. The subject property is bound on the north by North Forest Parkway and is bound on the south by undeveloped A-O Agricultural Open. The proposed R-1 land use is in compliance with the City's Plan, thus staff is recommending approval of this zone change. Item Background: The subject property was annexed in 1997 and is currently not platted. In October 2005, the property just to the north-east of North Forest Parkway known as the Fojtik tract was recently rezoned from A-O to R-1, which was also in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 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. • S~ 1. 2. 3. 4. C apporting Materials: Location Map Aerial Map Application Infrastructure and Facilities • ~ ~ e^"'--~ - l g ~ N p A ~ O ~ ~ N APPOMATTOX DR ~ ~ ~ Z 2~ ~~ ~ ~ N ~'~ ~',y s N `g ~ ~ p ~ l-~ Mme,, .` e",tl'I M e ~ nn~7 ~ [Ql u G ^° ~ ~ 0~~~ ~ (~O .,or ~ 1 r ~ ~ a fl n ~I ~~ N r ~ ff ~ y ,y° ri ~ CO ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ r `~ o` ~ ~ ~ ^~ ar~o ~ 4' ~ ^~ O ti ~ N ~ °P^ °~° ~ r q'r O N ~ ° - ~ M vt `~ r o ~ CO ~ ` °~ N~o1 °ro ~ ~' ~~ ~ ~- ~ ~` ~O ~ 0 ~ °A ~ ~ N /~ J~ ~° /'- ~ V~'~ ~ N e~'° ~ ~ OQO~ ~ ~ vFF N ~ $ M M °~ ~G~M °',V ~" °~ \ M ~ ~ ° y ti N ~' N Qp° !` ,° vP° ~8 `~ ~ '~ co ~ N `~ s G' r r~ ~ vP°° Q~~ ~~ ~ r ~ ~ °° ~ z~N N ~ pp 00 f~ `~ Ch /~/ t7 ° ~ ~~J - g ~ ~ M `' ti~ 0 ~ O ~ N e~ ~ ~~ r ~ ~ ~'Le ° ~^ 'f'ey CG eat ~ "/ ~~ In ~'~ O ~ A ~ ~-" ~M1 ~ Ofd r °°' r- O r~ti ~ ~ ~~ ~ry° M ° ry r r ~ry° ti °p ~J a°° ~ ~' ~ r C'7 ~ ~,~ ~p N ~titi ry ° ^ ~ ~ fP p>ry ° ~ r ° ~~ ~~ 'rM ~ e e' ` M ti Q~ ~0 N ~ ~ ~.~° C °° N ~ N ~ r ° °p~ to d'~~!/ ° °~ N ~, pJ ~~.° ~8 N ch 1 `J ~o° N N s°° In nn(~ N `~ ~ eA°ry~ M~ ~~ V u ~o ~ ~ C~ ~' Q'm a ~ ~° ~ 275 N N ~ N08 N ~ rO,b 0~ f~N ~ O ~~ Z NON CRE o N ~,, ~ ~ cD W cos ~ ~ ~ d 0 80P1 S09B LOpp ~ rope ~~ N ~ N ~ M ~ "~ ~ ~ r r 0 N 'g ^; V m M N a W 0 1' I i. L f Z 1 _ N r ~N}' li RFR~E~PY SOVZHI ~ 6 ' IEAR~ RuppE s-~p,-CE HW -. 1 z ~Q w w F- z w a O J W w O ~. • ~1't"'!I` 4f~ LI:EGB'~'*1"TCXN 0 a~~~ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING) APPLICATION MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS If a petition for rezoning is denied by the Clty 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 City Council. The following iterr~s must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for consideration: ~/ Application completed in full. $500.00 application fee .i Two (2) copies of a fully dimensioned map on 24" x 36" paper showing: a. Land affected; b. Legal description of area of proposed change; c. Present zoning; d. Zoning classification of all abutting land; and e. All public and private rights-of--way and easements bounding and intersecting subject land. ~ Written legal description of subject property (metes 8~ bounds or lot 8 block of subdivision, whichever is applicable). . ,~ The Rezoning Supporting Information sheet completed in full. A CAD (dxf/dwg) or GIS (shp) digital file may be required for more complex rezonina reauests_ uate or Required Preapplication Conference: • APPLICANT'S INFORMATION: Name V,sna I~In;~F-wrvt~-f Street Address City ~b~~f~. ~' 5~70~ ~ State ~_ E-Mail Address JUST(~JU.1N-- T-I,,~a1~f Y?f-~ l-~-r-~.~4-// Zip Code -77~a2 ~4/"~ Phone Number ~i'~79 - ? ~~f- ~p~ v Fax Number 97~` 7Cv y- b ya2 -f PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name _~~i FOR OFFICE ONLY CA8E NO. O DATE SUBMITTED OS i c.~s ~,- /~/, Street Address ~~~~ ~cYc /l4 7 ~ City ~•/%t s~e% State ~ Zip Code 77~'j-2. E-Mail Address ~~~ ~.ttr Phone Numbe f?iS ~~1 Y ~3y Fax Number 9 79- 7!0'>- O ya ~c~ --, This property was conveyed to owner by deed dated ra /~ 10 5 and recorded in Volume Page of the Brazos County Deed Records. General Location of Property _.~~ ~Nrw~ gtrr7,o.~ ~~ a$ l~ d' >(Z~y (y Address of Property: Legal Description:_ f{C.l'U'YCP4t' /vI jZfcTdyl- ~~,~ ~~T ~s 7 ,~~~f-g~ 710 Acreage -Total Property: _ ~ 7 ~ Existing Zoning: _ /a O Proposed Zoning: n • Present Use of Property: iroposed Use of ~roperty:_ fSlcr'f~- na-( 6/13103 Page 1 of 2 ~- -~ ~-~ .~ ~ • ' REZONING SUPPORTING INFORMATION • 1.) List the changed or changing conditions in the area or in the City which make this zone change necessary. 6nest°n ~'~4~ £ ~sztl ~./lam, ~ fits cr~ ~7 ova ~y-~l /.~ ~ 1'3f /~-~ GC S A-S f Gu K vl f N f:-y/ / ~l/ 2.) Indicate whether or not this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. If it is not, explain why the Plan is incon'ect. ZGny £ e l~.,,,s ~ . s . ,.~ l+~c o ucla,.aC v, rf,~ ~t1C ~ ~r~rt~ /~ f,,,S~,vF~OG~„ • 3.) List any other reasons to support this zone change. The applicant has prepared this application and supporting information and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. IF APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BYA POWER OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER. ' na re of owns or applicant gal ~/~~ Date • 6/13/03 Page 2 of 2 • r • Elizabeth Matous Swetish 9.95 Acre Tract Morgan Rector Survey, A-46 College Station, Brazos County, Texas Field notes of a 9.95 acre tract orparcel of land, lying and being situated in the Morgan Rector Survey, Abstract No. 46, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, and being part of the called 10 acre tract described in the deed from Frank Matous, Jr., and wife, Helen F. Matous to Elizabeth Matous Swetish and husband Stephen M. Swetish, recorded in Volume4040, Page 107, ofthe Official Records of Brazos County, Texas; BEGINNING at a'/:"iron rod found marking the common comer between the beforementioned 10 acre tract and a 24.935 acre tract described in the deed to Ben A. Mathews and Yvonne D. Moll recorded in Volume 5949, Page 271, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, said'~4"iron rod being in the southwest line of Lot 3, Block 14, Emerald Forest Phase 9 according to the plat recorded in Volume 2075, Page 91, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, said'/" iron rod being located N 48° 15' 29" E - 34.81 feet from the south corner of Lot 3, Block 14; THENCE S 38°08'06" W along the common line between the beforementioned 10 acre tract and the 24.935 acre tract for a distance of 404.76 feet to a 6/e" iron rod found marking the common corner between the said 10 acre tract and North Forest Subdivision -21.42 acres, according to the plat recorded in Volume 6005, Page 130, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, said %"iron rod is marking the east corner of a 2.434 acre Greenway dedication area, being part of the North Forest Subdivision; THENCE N 48° 16' 24" W along the common line between the beforementioned 10 acre tract and North Forest Subdivision for a distance of 1083.35 feet to a'r~"iron rod set at the north corner of Lot 1, Block 4, North Forest Subdivision and in the southeastright-of--way line of North Forest Parkway - 60'right-of--way, as shown on the plat of Lord's Acres -Lot 2, recorded in Volume 5709, Page 198, of the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, the west corner of the said 10 acre tract bears N 48° 16' 24" W - 9.2 feet; THENCE along the southeast right-of-way line of North Forest Parkway - 60' right-of-way as follows: N 42° 24' 23" E fora distance of 210.13 feet to a '/" iron rod set at the beginning of a curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 430.00 feet, Northeasterly along said curve for an arc distance of 53.20 feet to a'/" iron rod set at the end of this curve, the chord bears N 38° 51' 43" E - 53.17 feet, N 35° 19' 03" E fora distance of 102.42 feet to a'r4" iron rod set at the beginning of a curve concave to the southeast having a radius of 370.00 feet, Northeasterly along said curve, for an arc distance of 39.35 feet to a'/" iron rod set at the west corner of a Lot 11, Block 14, Emerald Forest Phase 9, the chord bears N 38° 21' 51" E - 39.33 feet; • THENCE S 48° 15' 29" E along the common line between the beforementioned 10 acre tract Emerald Forest Phase 9, at a distance of 8.2 feet pass the north comer of the said 10 acre tract, continue on for a total distance of 1071.89 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING, containing 9.95 acres of land, more or less. '~°•••'~•• 'F Surve Nove ~1r ~~~ s r gR.." ~- dQ ~ o;yv, By: S~•Mq KLING . Klin • Prepared 12N9/05 ~'/~~'~~' ~~,~~~ R.P.L.S. No. 2003 kpOSOYdvdbvwthh•8.8S~e.wpd •-••^ ~~~~~~~ ~~w nnv aUIYVCTIN(3 BRYAN.TE%AS • INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: The subject property is located adjacent to 2 - 8" public water main. Sewer: The subject property is located adjacent to a 15" public sanitary sewer main and a 27" public sanitary sewer main. Streets: The subject property will take access off North Forest Parkway. Off-site Easements: Easements may be required for storm sewer system. Drainage: The subject property is located within the Main Bee Creek drainage basin. Flood Plain: The subject property is located adjacent to however is not considered to be encroached by the flood plain. Oversize request: none at this time • Impact Fees: N/A NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 12-30-05 and 01-03-06 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 01-19-06 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 02-09-06 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 55 Response Received: None as of date of staff report C, Regular Agenda 8 Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning for 2407 Rock Prairie Road consisting of one lot on 1.787 acres generally located at the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6. Case #05-500241(CH/LB) • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Crissy Hartl Report Date: January 9, 2006 Email: chart)@cstx.gov Meeting Date: January 19, 2006 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a rezoning for 2407 Rock Prairie consisting of 1 lot on 1.787 acres generally located at the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6 South from A-O Agricultural Open to C-1 General Commercial. Applicant: Jeffrey Reed, Surveyor for owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the C-1 zoning request. Item Summary: The applicant is requesting the rezoning in order to develop a commercial project in conjunction with the eastern adjacent lot. The property to the north is zoned C-1 General Commercial and developed as the Courtyard Marriott hotel. All other surrounding properties are currently undeveloped. The property to the west is zoned C-1 General Commercial, the property to the east is zoned A-O Agricultural Open, and the properties to the • south are zoned C-1 General Commercial and A-O Agricultural Open. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The rezoning request for C-1 General Commercial is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan for Regional Retail as shown in the East By-Pass Small Area Plan. Rock Prairie Road is a minor arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan. Item Background: This property was annexed in 1997 and subsequently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. The property is currently unplatted. 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. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Application • 4. Infrastructure and Facilities P: IGRO UPI HTLTRI PZLTRI PRODI PZ20051 P0012213. DOC Created on 12/20/2005 1:29:00 PM • INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water: This area is located adjacent to an 18" water main. Sewer: This area is located adjacent to an 8" and a 12" sewer main. Streets: This area is located adjacent to Rock Prairie Rd. a major arterial. Off-site Easements: None known of at this time. Drainage: This area is located in the Lick Creek Drainage Basin. Flood Plain: None on-site. Oversize request: None known of at this time. Impact Fees: None NOTIFICATION: • Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 01-03-06 and x-xx-02 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 1-19-06 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 02-09-06 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 9 Response Received: None as of date of staff report • P: I GRO UPI HTLTRI PZLTRI PRODI PZ20051 P0012213. DOC Created on 12/20/2005 1:29:00 PM K 2 `'° OG r- ° N `~ ~ p1 g3 5 ~ s c~ `Qo c~ ~ O~v `~ 2 2~2L 12p0 M ~ g''12 ti ~~ fl 0 N CO , 5~° ~ ~ ~ ~( 9304 g'~°° N ~ g3pg o C~ ~ Wpb OO 9308 e_ ~ g9p1 ~ ^ 9 O g~ ~ ~ 9~p~ ~~~ ggOA M ' \~ 4 ti°° °~'° P~ 9~'°ry N OG a ~. ` Y 9`'°° ~ Q U O~ r ~o o~ ~O ~~ r ~ ~~ ~ Y v0 V ° o° m ~ 1 9g~g ~- Y U O m N U ~V ~ 65 5~ • Z ~Q 1__j _i 3g~ LIJ Z Z NO W b°^ ti N v O y U r 1 w a U O ti 0 N W w z w a O M w LL ~ N 11. 1 t '- . , ~ S a~ o~ ~~w FOR OFFICE U8E /OtNLY CASE NO. ~ 5 ` a.~ DATE SUBMITTED ~ 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 & Zoning Commission or City Council. The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for consideration: Application completed in full. $500.00 application fee Two (2) copies of a fully dimensioned map on 24" x 36" 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. 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 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 complex rezoning requests. Date of Required Preapplication Conference: DEcember 5, 2005 • APPLICANT'S INFORMATION: Name Hughes-Southwest Surveying Company, Jeffrey Reed Street Address 11231 Richmond Ave. D-105 City Houston, State Texas Zip Code 77082 E-Mail Address 7effreed@hughesswsurvey.com Phone Number 281-496 -9977 Fax Number 281-496-9989 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name The Plazas at Rock Prairie Rd., LTD. Street Address 1117 Eldridge Parkway City Houston State Texas Zip Code 77077 E-Mail Address Phone Number 281-531-5300 Fax Number 281-531-8528 This property was conveyed to owner by deed dated 10-27-2005 and recorded in Volume 6993 Page 172 of the Brazos County Deed Records. General Location of Property: Northerly intersection of St. Highway 6 and Rock Praire Rd. Address of Property: Vacant land on State Highway 6 Legal Description: 1.787 Acre Tract T. Cruthers Survey A-9, R. Stevenson A-54 Acreage -Total Property: 1.787 Acres Existing Zoning: A-o • Present Use of Property: vacant land Proposed Use of Property: Commercial -Retail Rw~'^ Proposed Zoning: C-1 6h 3/03 Page 1 of 2 ~j ~~ ~_~ REZONING SUPPORTING INFORMATION • 1.) List the changed or changing conditions in the area or in the City which make this zone change necessary. This property is located at the intersection of 2 ma3or streets, the area around this property is developed or is being developed as commercial property. 2.) Indicate whether or not this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. If it is not, explain why the Plan is incon'ect. The property is partially zoned as commercial and the remaining portion is zoned as agriculural land. The property is a portion of a larger tract intend ~ to b d v ton ~ a~ commercial. • 3.) List any other reasons to support this zone change. Approx one-half of the property is Zoned as commercial and the remaining part The applicant has prepared this application and supporting information and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. IF APPLICATION /S FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A POWER OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER. Signature of owner (o agent) or app scant • 6/13/03 ~~ ~~ d Date Page 2 of 2 Regular Agenda 9 Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment by amending the Land Use Plan for 28.01 acres of Tract 2.11 of the Robert Stevenson Survey, A-54, generally located southeast of the intersection of Decatur Drive and Alexandria Avenue. The proposed land use plan classic cations include a change from Residential Attached to a combination of Retail Regional and Single- Family Residential, Medium Density. Case #05-500238 (LB) • STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Lindsay Boyer Report Date: December 27, 2005 Email: Ibover(cacstx.~ov Meeting Date: January 19, 2005 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment by amending the Land Use Plan for 28.01 acres of Tract 2.11 of the Robert Stevenson Survey, A-54, generally located southeast 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 (05-238 LB). Applicant: Spring Creek CS Development, Ltd, Mr. Wallace Phillips, property owner Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the Regional Retail component of this request, and recommends Single-Family Residential, Medium Density for the entire tract in keeping with the pattern of single family development in this area. Item Background: This item is for the consideration of an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The property owner has requested that the land use plan be changed from Residential Attached to 20.034 acres of Retail Regional and 7.975 acres of Single-Family Residential, Medium Density. The residential component is located at the northern end of the tract, with the remainder identified for retail. • The subject property currently has a 1.5 acres oil well and drill site, otherwise the property remains vacant. The property is surrounded by greenways around the southern and western sides, and Shenandoah Phase 8 to the north. The east side of the tract is separated from Single-Family Residential, High Density by the future extension of Decatur Drive, an identified Major Collector on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. In both the previous comprehensive plan -College Station Plan 2000, and the current 1997 Comprehensive Plan, this tract was identified for medium density residential development. In 2000, a master plan for Castlegate was approved which included this entire tract. At that time, the tract was identified for multi-family development. In 2003, the Comprehensive Plan was amended to reflect the changes approved in the 2000 master plan and the subsequent rezonings that were approved. Since the amendment of the Plan, there have been a number of developments in this area. New phases to the Shenandoah subdivision (Single Family Residential, Medium Density) have been approved, along with Planned Development Districts for Spring Creek Townhomes and Spring Creek Gardens, both indicated as Single Family Residential, High Density. Across the greenway to the west, a PDD rezoning and Concept Plan have been approved for the Castlerock residential subdivision, indicated as Single-Family Residential, Medium Density. Based on policies to locate multi-family residential within a mile of the University, as well as the pattern of single-family residential being developed in this area, amending the residential attached to single-family medium density residential is appropriate for this • area. • Staff has seen significant pressure for retail development in this area, as evidenced by a number of Comprehensive Land Use amendments at the intersection of Greens Prairie Road and State Highway 6 to Regional Retail. Over 300 vacant acres of land planned for commercial is located at the intersection of Greens Prairie Road and State Highway 6, over half of this area is within half a mile of the subject property. Goal Three from the Comprehensive Plan states that "College Station should continue to protect, preserve, and enhance existing and future neighborhoods," and Objective 3.1 associated with this goal states that "College Station should continue to protect the integrity of residential areas by minimizing intrusive and incompatible land uses and densities." The intensity of commercial development next to single family residential has been an issue for a number of neighborhoods around the City, which has resulted in the creation of a buffer requirement between incompatible land uses. The Spring Creek greenway creates a natural break between these uses, without additional buffering being required, thereby protecting the existing and proposed neighborhoods. Due to the nearby area that is already allocated for retail development, and the natural buffer provided by the greenway between the neighborhoods and the retail, Regional Retail is not appropriate for the subject property. The subject property was annexed in 1983 and subsequently zoned A-O. In 2001, the property was rezoned to R-4 in compliance with the master plan. This property is located in the Spring Creek Impact Area for sewer. The property is currently unplatted. • Budgetary and Financial Summary: N/A Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the question of Comprehensive Plan Amendments, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission's options are: 1. Recommend approval; 2. Recommend denial; 3. Table; or, 4. Defer action to a specified date. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Application 4. Proposed Land Use Map (24x36 for wall) 5. Maps NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 1-3-2006 and 1-242006 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): January 19, 2006 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: February 9, 2006 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners within 200': 28 • Responses Received: None to date as of the staff report. Y~~ `~ a s ~ ~~ r~i ~~ V T V t ~e V U a, b~ o~~ r V O Q ` ~b / r 'k~rok • , Sy` s V r a ~` U ~ ` ~, ~ ~, ~ o '' ~ ° d ao~`~e a ~ o a •~ ~ g `'~ ~ a ~.. °~'d . ~ , o °. ~ r ,, ~ i ~ tJ ^a~ I 3 O^ ~Q: p•ag b,~~,. 0 P C ~e o ~' " ` `Y~ I '~ o '~ 9 + v ° GCs °° a' ti ~ o ~ tie a : &J '-.'.. ,, *n ^ t \' V , d'' _ M' ; ~ s ~ ~ ~ e 1 ~ 1 t ~, 7 F ~ F x sz R ~ i ~ ^~ti„N F ^ a ~ a ~ Pe. +u e F n ' ~ r tl ~ ~.' y ~n C! ~' ^ F ~~`' ~ \ t" ~~ - ~ Q _ P ~ 'F V` ~~~ a ~ , •. a R ~R ~z a ~ a ~ ~ ~. ~ z a ~ ~ • g $ e ~ a a a - ~ 0 { r V V ~ N ~' ' V r g ~~ a ~~ N ~ h U ~ a O L ; 0 a d' ~ r Z Z I L . . O UQ M N I o ~ Qj cv U Z W ~ Y d ~ LL ~~ a° U ~ ° ~ a ~, . ~ v~ ".~ W ~~ 0 ~~Wyy R R LL Z { W ~ 9 G ~I a a~~ ~ p y~IR J F- W R i'• `oY • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION planning d' Development Services FOB OFFI~ USE ONLY Case No. 1~J1~J 3g Date COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION r~ • (Check all applicable) D Land Use Amendment ^Thoroughfare Amendment ^ alignment /location ^ classification The following items must be submitted by the established deadline dates for consideration: D Two (2) copies of a fully dimensioned map on 24" X 36" paper showing: a. Land affected; b. Present zoning of property and zoning classification of all abutting properties; c. Current land use plan classification and proposed land use plan changes; d. Current land use classification of all abutting property; e. Current and proposed thoroughfare alignments D General location and address of property; D Total acres of property; and D All applicable Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request form(s) completed in full. The following information must be completed before an application is accepted for review. APPLICANT INFORMATION: (if different from owner, a complete affidavit shall be required) Name:~rin_q Creek CS Development Ltd. -Wallace Phillips E-mail: wallace.phillipsCa~verizon.net Street Address: 4490 Castle4ate Drive City: Colle4e Station State: TX Zip Code: 77845 Phone Number: (979)690-7250 Fax Number: (979)690-1041 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name: Sprin_g Creek CS Development, Ltd. E-mail: Street Address: 4490 Castle_gate Drive City: Colle4e Station State: TX Zip Code: 77845 Phone Number: (979)690-7250 Fax Number: (979)690-1041 F Paae 1 0l' 1 i TRACT 2 - 20.034 ACRES • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM The following is required if an amendment to the Land Use Plan is requested. Based on the nature and extent of the requested amendment, additional studies may be required. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Current Land Use Plan designation: Residential Attached Requested Land Use Plan designation: Retail-Regional Explain the reason for this Land Use Plan amendment: This tract is located at the future intersection of Decatur Drive and Arrington Road, and commercial development would be more appropriate at this location. Identify what conditions have changed to warrant a change in the land use plan designation: The proximity of this site to other major retail locations and the increased traffic on Arrington Road and Decatur Drive due to the current development occurring in this area has made the Residential-Attached designation undesirable. • How does the requested land use designation further the goals and objectives of the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan? The Retail-Regional land use will promote increased retail sales and tax revenue, and it will provide for centralized retail activity along the major intersections. Explain why the requested land use designation is more appropriate than the existing designation. The City's policy is to encourage student housing near campus. Apartment housing in this location would be inhabited by students in contradiction to this policy. In addition, this commercial tract will be bounded on two sides by major thoroughfares and on a third side by a conservation zone, which is an area that will not be developed. The fourth side is a proposed single-family residential development, and the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) provides for buffers to prevent negative impacts to residential developments located near commercial areas. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. Signature and Title /V.,~c / 9 - 0.5 Date Page ~ of • g } _ ~ ,~ TRACT 1- 7.975 ACRES • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM The following is required if an amendment to the Land Use Plan is requested. Based on the nature and extent of the requested amendment, additional studies may be required. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Current Land Use Plan designation: Residential Attached Requested Land Use Plan designation: Single-Family Residential -Medium Density Explain the reason for this Land Use Plan amendment: Revising the land use will allow asingle-family residential development. Identify what conditions have changed to warrant a change in the land use plan designation: Multi-family residential developments are not in demand in the area and with the addition of Forest Ridge Elementary School, there continues to be a strong demand for single- family housing in this area. • How does the requested land use designation further the goals and objectives of the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan? Multi-family residential developments are not desirable unless they are located near the TAMU campus where the student housing market is in the greatest demand. This land use plan change would prevent the construction of apartments on this tract. Explain why the requested land use designation is more appropriate than the existing designation. The development to the north is single-family residential and this change would prevent the development ofmulti-family housing adjacent to the existing homes. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies thaf the facts stated herein and exhibits attached herefo are true and correct. • ~ J Signature and Title ~.u' ~4•~ Date Page 2 of Regular Agenda 10 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 (~) • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Planner Report Date: January 11, 2006 Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov Meeting Date: January 19, 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. Over the past 10 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. 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 and approximately 190 residents at the second meeting. Meeting notes and neighborhood comments are attached to this report. 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 that that 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 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 applicant's 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 applicant 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 of tax- generating developments such as retail centers, service, commercial, restaurants, etc. These uses are generally dependent on good access to highways and arterials." Office - "areas permitting medium scale development of tax generating developments such as office parks, corporate offices, and office lease space. These uses are usually dependent on good access to highways and local arterials." Industrial /Research & 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 a mixed-use pattern. The planned development category emphasizes the need to master plan the area to ensure appropriate placement of different uses. The PDD zoning districts may be the best approach for zoning for development in these areas. The approach provides maximum flexibility for the market and developer while ensuring a compatible pattern of uses." The East Bypass Small Area Action Plan, completed in 2000, is an update to the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the plan was to work with residents of neighborhoods east of the State Highway 6 Bypass to identify and address local issues. This area and its residents were included in the formation of this plan. The East Bypass Plan stated the following regarding potential land uses in the area: Preferred mixed use developments: ^ Administrative Professional offices ^ Neighborhood stores ^ Restaurants ^ Religious Institutions • ^ Senior Living facilities ^ Single family residential ^ Mixed-Use developments combining the above uses Discouraged Mixed-Use developments: ^ Large scale retail centers /big box commercial ^ Automobile dealerships ^ Gasoline and service stations ^ Apartment complexes /student housing Additional site standards were also recommended in the East Bypass Small Area Action Plan including buffering, lighting restrictions, and aesthetic controls. These items have been addressed in the Unified Development Ordinance and now apply to all non-residential properties within the City of College Station (the aesthetic regulations do not apply to the industrial zoning districts). Rezoning History in This Area: The City had several rezoning requests in this area approximately 10 years ago. Staff recommended approval in each case with various conditions such as requiring a master plan of the area, buffering, step-down zoning classifications, and limiting commercial access to Sebesta Road. Residents' concerns were generally focused on cut-through traffic and unacceptable land uses in close proximity to neighborhoods. An outline of each request is attached to this report. During this time there were also several property owner meetings held outlining uses that the neighborhood felt were • appropriate in the area. The 1995 meeting notes and the 1996 meeting notes are also attached to this report. • Land Use Plan History in This Area: ^ HOK 1997 Plan: Mixed Use for area south of Sebesta. Mixed Use, Retail Regional, and Office for area north of Sebesta. ^ East Bypass Plan: HOK plan was changed to reflect Mixed Use instead of Commercial at the northwest corner of Sebesta and Highway 6 Mixed Use Opportunity Study: This study removed the 'Mixed Use' land. use designation and is the land use plan we see today. The locations of the uses on the plan were based on current zonings of the properties. For properties that are zoned as 'holding zones' (A-O and R-1) along the bypass, the Land Use Plan was changed to reflect land use designations that complied as much as possible with the East Bypass Plan. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Land Use Plan designations as shown below: • The appropriate zoning districts for the area shown as Regional Retail are a future East Bypass Zoning district or PDD Planned Development District that are consistent with the uses specified in the East Bypass Small Area Action Plan. ^ The appropriate zoning district for the area shown as Planned Development is PDD Planned Development District. This district should also be consistent with the land uses specified in the East Bypass Small Area Action plan and may include a mix of uses to include neighborhood • commercial, office, and residential components, with single-family • residential development abutting the existing residential properties in Foxfire and Woodcreek Subdivisions to provide a 'step-down' in intensity of uses. ^ The appropriate zoning district for the area shown as Office is A-P Administrative Professional. ^ The appropriate zoning districts for the area shown as Industrial RED are C-2 Commercial Industrial, M-1 Light Industrial, and R&D Research & Development. Staff further recommends implementation of the attached Traffic Mitigation Plan upon the approval of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Based on the traffic mitigation plan the study area will automatically be included as a candidate project for College Station's Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program if and when the traffic volumes on Foxfire Drive or Stonebrook Drive reach 4,000 vehicles per day. Based on the program policy, if it is determined that the need for mitigation in this area exceeds that of other candidate project areas, a traffic calming plan will be developed by a team composed of neighborhood representatives and City staff. If the plan is approved by a vote of the neighborhood, as specified in the neighborhood traffic calming policy, it will be implemented. • The most favorable and permanent mitigation plan for traffic on Sandstone Drive will be the construction of AMS Road, providing a more appropriate route for traffic desiring to access locations south of Sebesta Road from the north. The construction of this roadway should be done independent of and prior to the need for mitigation on Sandstone Drive. The timing of the construction of this roadway will be based on the City Council's transportation project priorities and available funding. Commission Action Options: The Commission acts on the question of Comprehensive Plan Amendment 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. Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Application & Revision 4. Existing LUP and Proposed LUP 5. Neighborhood Meeting Notes- May 10, 2005 • 6. Neighborhood Meeting Notes- June 21, 2005 as a recommending body which will be ultimately • 7. Neighborhood Meeting Comment Card Responses • 8. Area Zoning History 9. 1995 & 1996 Meeting Notes 10. Traffic Impact Analysis 11. Traffic Mitigation Plan • ry n ~ ~ - D ° ~' '~,, ~ Z o R a x _ ° g _ a '° °b ~ ' ~' _ °..K' 6 1' ~ ° J 0 6a S ~ y ° ~r-~ $ ° ~ K e R O 9 ^~ ^ A •~ ^ ~ Y T ° ~ ~ g " ~~ " Dk ' 'ELF-I"1_.1~ ~ ° ~ 6 , (~ ~ o R 8 i„ ~ ° o ' 6~ cn 6t~6ROOna+ OODtR 0^ ° ~ R i g ~ 34D~ ry ~ ~a~' g o O ^ ~ 4 ~ 6 ~ ~ tJ/ e ~ ~` - ' ~ `~~ ~ ~ ~a ° °Rp~ Q~° ~ ° s ~ ~ RR °~` n ~d a P~8 ~ °` ° ° F8 ° n ry ° ~ r e ~ 6~r`~~° ° R o I.i ~ N ' ~ P ~1 -_ -g R `~ n 9 ~ ° z ~ R ,~Y O R l Z g ~ ~' Y +d ~ ~ ~ _ , Q ' ~ , _ R ~ ~ a d ° .~~ ~ ~ I ~o - ' ~. ` s ~ n 6TAlE nWY6 ~ IEARI RUDDER iREEWAY 6011In) ~ .' 6 e ~' ~ ~` ~ ° ° ° Q a O ~ O ~ r ~~ ~ ° ~ r'+~+ g ~ w ° 9 ~~ C'~` ~ ~ M ~ ~ g R R° R° ~ R ^ Z W a o - - ii ' R R ~ a Q ~ ~ ° °~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ g o ~~ ERR R ~y s o°a R v a O ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ a' ~ c 7~ 8s R'RR RR x R W e- ~ ~ ~ R R R pS R R A RRR R o g~ \ / ~ ~ v 9 p ~(~D ~ ~,~ ° ~ ' ~D ' ~~~ noauAno oR' ° o == n R W Q Q Z' A SS~"9 ~~JJ ~~ S~ ' E _ 8 ~ °o z aRB RRit AftRB ~ ~ G ~ g 8 68 g R R 9R • ~ R `2~ ~ R E 88 S 8 RR 7~ x R R' R 8 R G R p R p N~ ~. ,~ < ~ ,b' ' ~' `Ga 8 8 8 , 8§ R s8 RG o~ ° C R ~ , ,~EnnlF a R° g '= 8 3 R ~ R P ~ o 8 8 R E C E 7 p =~ i ~A RRRR 8 Rp n S ~ ~l ` 6$. r ~ 8 8 R B g pF 9 E R cEUn A 8 9 7 o ~ ~ a v epSR ° ~ bD o • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d Dev~lopmrnt Srrvica FOR OFFICE~SF,ONLY Case No. FF.~~ ((~~ Date Submitted COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION C, • (Check all applicable) X Land Use Amendment ^ Thoroughfare Amendment ^ alignment /location ^ class cation I ne tonowing Items must be submitted by the established deadline dates for consideration: ^ $850 application and review fee ^ Two (2) copies of a fully dimensioned map on 24" X 36" paper showing: a. Land affected; b. Presets zoning of property and zoning classification of all abutting properties; c. Current land use plan dassfication and proposed land use plan changes; d. Current land use classification of all abutting property; e. Cun'ent and proposed thoroughfare alignments ^ General location and address of property; ^ Total acres of property; and ^ All applicable Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request form(s) completed in full. The following information must be completed before an application is accepted for review. APPLICANT INFORMATION: (if different from owner, a complete affidavit shall be required) Name: Charles A. Ellison. PC E-mail: chuck[c~ellisonlaw.com Street Address: 302 Holleman East / PO Box 10103 CS TX. 77842-0103 City: CS State: TX Zip Code: 77840 Phone Number: 979-693-1213 (office) Fax Number. PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name: East BvPass Develolament Grouo (Bill Atkinson) E-mail: Atkinson[ailfabtexas.com Street Address: 3001 Rustling Oaks City: Brvan State: TX Zip Code: 77802 Phone Number. 361-6285 Fax Number. 361-6233 6/13/03 Page 1 of 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM • This request involves approximately 50 acres of vacant land located generally at the southeast comer of Sebesta Road and the Earl Rudder Freeway East Frontage Road, and extending south along the Frontage Road to the developing church property at the entrance to Woodcreek Subdivision (refer to attached map). Current Land Use Plan designation: RED Research & Development Requested Land Use Plan designation: Regional Retail Explain the reason for this Land Use Plan amendment: The R8D designation was placed on the property with the understanding that it would develop in a fashion similar to Texas Digital Systems (TDS). Unfortunately, there is no demand for almost 50 acres of privately held R&D property in the City of College Station. The owners have no desire to develop the property themselves; they solely wish to market it. Unfortunately, the R8D land use classfication is not marketable at the present time. Its location, along a state highway and at a comer, makes it more useable for commercial development. At the same time, its location along the By-Pass with the assoaated noise, make it undesirable for single-family • residential development. Thus the owners are requesting a change in the land use designation. Identify what conditions have changed to warrant a change in the land use plan designation: Two very signficant code changes that have occuned since the existing plan was adopted are the Neighborhood Protection Standards and the Non-Residential Architectural Standards with its requirement for a traffic impact analysis at the time of development of a commeraal site. The requirements in these sections of the UDO add greater protection to surrounding neighborhoods than ever before and, in fact, can allow for a less rigid separation of land uses than has been traditional in College Station. How does the requested land use designation further the goals and objectives of the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan? This request furthers several of the Land Use Goals and Objectives: • Proposes higher land use intensities along major roadways (Obj. 2.2), • Provides for infill development within the existing sewershed (Obj. 1.2), • • Avoids strip commercial by locating at an intersection of two major roadways (Obj. 1.3), and • Protects existing neighbofioods by buffering proposed land uses adjacent to residential areas as required by the UDO. 6/13/03 Page 2 of 3 • Explain why the requested land use designation is more appropriate than the existing designation. The R&D land use classification is not a marketable one at the present time. As stated above, the public sector has developed two business parks and a research park severely limiting additional demand for research and development oriented property. This is evidenced by the current number of privately held RED 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 commercial development. The opposite comer of Sebesta is designated as Regional Retail and is zoned C-1, as are both comers of Woodcreek Drive at the By-Pass. All of the properties are developed or are currently being developed. The depth of the property allows for development in such a way as to preclude the negative impacts of strip commercial development. The scheduled reconfiguration of access to Highway 6 by TxDOT will 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 north is developed as churches, existing neighborhoods and the Academy specialty retail development. The location of this property along Highway 6, makes it undesirable for single-family residential development. The applicant has prepared this application and certdies that the pacts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are t-ue and correct Si ature and Title ~ Date 6/13/03 Page 3 of 3 • CONSENT AND AUTHORIZATION OF EAST BYPASS DEVELOPMENT GROUP The undersigned, being the Managing Partner of the EAST BYPASS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, a Texas Joint Venture composed of PATRICIA LJUNGDAHL, WILLIAM C. ATKINSON, MICHAEL G. SHOUP, JAMES R. WHATLEY and ROBERT BOWER, JR. (the "Joint Venture"), hereby certify the Joint Venture's consent that CHARLES A. ELLISON is authorized and empowered, in the name and on behalf of the Joint Venture, to execute the applications for comprehensive plan amendments and requests for rezoning regarding the property described as being 50 acres, more or less, in the Morgan Rector League, Abstract No. 46, College Station, Brazos County, Texas, and located on the East Bypass. DATED this cay of March, 2005. EAST B//..Y))PASS DEVrELOPM~ENT G~,ROUP William C. Atkinson, Managing Partner • Consent and Authorization Pa e 1 S Crap ~d5 - ~~1 ~ ~~ ~ ~2c~ : 05 - ~3 .~- I P S Grow • ._ Planning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 211 College Station, Texas 77845 December 2, 2005 City of College Station, Development Services Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner 1101 Texas Avenue South College Station, Texas 77840 Re: The Atkinson/Shoup Tn3ct generally located on Highway 6 between Woodcreek Drive and Sebesta Road Dear Jennifer, As you know, the Fast By-Pass Development Group and their representatives have been meeting with homeowners' representatives 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 the past several months. These requests are revised as follows: Cgmprehenaive Plan Amendment: My client is requesting to change the land use plan from RBrD Research & Development to Retail Regional and Office as per the attached drawing. Rezoning~,uest~ Concurrently, my client requests a rezoning for the property south of Technology 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 schedule will be: • Planning & Zoning Commission -January 5, 2005, and • City Council -January 26, 2005. Please let me know if there is additional information you need to proceed. 979.846.9259 www.ipsgroup.us Sincerely, 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, • Woodcreek /Sebesta Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposal Neighborhood Meeting Notes Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. Holy Cross Lutheran Church 1200 Foxfire drive The purpose of this meeting was to present a revised land use plan in the area of Sebesta Road and Woodcreek Drive and gather feedback from the adjacent neighborhoods. All residents of Foxfire, Woodcreek, Sandstone, and the southern portion of Emerald Forest, and all Home Owners' Associations were invited to the meeting. Approximately 185- 200 residents were in attendance. The following are a list of concerns and preferences expressed by the residents at the meeting: Land Use: ^ Would prefer to have Industrial next to single family homes Office land use designation and A-P Administrative Professional • zoning may be appropriate adjacent to neighborhood uses ^ Appropriate use next to single family is a park ^ Concerned with retail adjacent to homes in Woodcreek ^ C-1 permitted uses not acceptable in this location ^ Concerned with the future location of Wal-Mart ^ Do not want `big box' or car dealerships ^ Concerned that the neighborhood may be `boxed in' by retail • Some neighborhood scaled retail may be appropriate but not , next to the neighborhood • Concerned with noise from retail establishments, ie: public address systems next to homes ^ Concerned with flexibility of Planned Development. The Planned Development designation is too nebulous ^ Texas Digital property and the associated greenway should not be shown as `Planned Development' ^ Would like single family to remain on the Ledbetter tract (even though it may cause similar issues in the future) ^ Greenbelts should be provided along highways ^ Commercial along highways is not aesthetically pleasing ^ Do not want any high density residential multi-family or duplex , , Concerned with what might be developing on highway south of • Rock Prairie Road • Transportation: ^ Concerned with how retail traffic would get in and out of area ^ Concerned with existing traffic problems at the Rock Prairie bridge ^ City needs to take a closer look at how the proposals with increase trafl=lc in the area or change traffic patterns ^ Traffic increase on Emerald Parkway ^ Concerned that no traffic plan was presented at meeting ^ Concerned with cut-through traffic from development south of Rock Prairie Road ^ Need overpass between Emerald Parkway and Rock Prairie Road for retail to be appropriate in this area ^ Why is a Transportation Impact Analysis not done earlier in the process (with most intense use for site) ^ City needs to work more closely with TxDOT ^ Need to look at Thoroughfare Plan to deal with increasing traffic ^ Concerned with the TxDOT changes. Concerned that TxDOT is perusing changes regardless of land use decisions ^ Need to coordinate land use plan with TxDOT plans, and TxDOT should coordinate with City land use plans • Need a signal at the Emerald Parkway underpass Drainage: ^ Concerns with drainage and impervious surfaces from new developments ^ City needs to expand definition of the floodplain Other concerns: ^ Concerned with potential adverse affect to property values ^ Existing buffer required by ordinance is not large enough ^ Concerned with the substitutions allowed for the buffer. Would like for the neighborhood to be able to decide which option is used ^ Concerned that Texas Digital buffer / greenway is not adequate or will be changed ^ Feel that proposal does not protect integrity of the neighborhood ^ Feel that City Council will disregard neighborhood concerns because of the desire to increase sales tax generating properties ^ Concerned that P&Z and Council may not be watching out for neighborhoods ^ 1995 `agreement' addressed these issues -these should be used • as the current guidelines . Concerned that property owner can circumvent the process and work out a 'deal' with the City Council ^ Concerned about future applications to change land use plan again. Concerned with zoning process and replatting of existing unbuildable lots *When those in attendance were asked to stand if they supported Industrial remaining on the Plan for the area bound by Sebesta, Woodcreek Subdivision, and Our Savior's Lutheran Church (under construction), the majority stood in support. • • • Woodcreek /Sebesta Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposal Second Neighborhood Meeting Notes Tuesday, )une 21, 2005 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. Holy Cross Lutheran Church 1200 Foxgre 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 • r~ • COMMENT CARD RESPONSES Comment Cards were provided at the second Neighborhood Meeting. The following comments were received by those in attendance: LAND USE: "If the tract along Sebesta is too limited access for single family, how can it be adequate for planned development (Banks, etc)." "My concern is for the planned development area. It is so close to Foxfire. The city needs to be concerned with maintaining the property values. Leaving the area zoned as planned development demes the possibility of undesirable building." "Have you actually spent time in our neighborhood? Something like Academy Sports will absolutely RUIN the atmosphere of the neighborhood as would banks, dry cleaners, etc. We are talking about a "rural" feel in the heart of town. We do not all leave & return at same time of day!!" • "Concerns about property values for homeowners, traffic, noise, lighting. Our property has already been devalued with the addition of the Engineering Office Building & Marriott Hotel." "The back area of the Marriott is not being well maintained. What are the guarantees that this will not happen or other properties to be built?" "Office complex would be 1=fne -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." • • I live on Stonebrook -major concern about traffic. Believe owner should be able to sell w/o too much hassle from home owners -need to solve traffic problems & let them sell -what about an on/off to 6 @ Sebesta?" "Traffic is a great concern considering current residents have no option but cut through Emerald Forest to Foxfire unless taking the Rock Prairie exit." "Increased traffic on Stonebrook major concern. Do not rush this proposal through without more feedback from residents in Woodcreek &Foxfire." BUFFERS & NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION: "We live on ist street in Foxfire (Fields). Please keep natural buffer between subdivision and development." "Deeply concerned about keeping natural buffer zones in the neighborhood. When they developed Woodcreek up to Foxfire, they completely bulldozed all the trees. Now we have noise, not • to mention aesthetics. We need to help the integrity of our neighborhoods." "Concerns include the buffer/greenbelt between existing homes and new use. An example is the newer Woodcreek development which placed very dense housing directly to existing Foxfire lots with all previous vegetation removed." "Other concerns are lighting. Down lighting to minimize light pollution is greatly appreciated vs. glaring street and parking lot lighting." "Thanks for your help on this matter. Please do not change zoning from what it is now. I feel that if it is changed it will degrade our home values and add to traffic congestion in area. Traffic is bad now @ Rock Prairie & frontage roads now." "Despite the property owners desires, property owner's best interests would be served by leaving the zoning the way it is. Investing in property is subject to market vagaries. We should not have to be exposed to retail just to satisfy current owner's • sale wishes. The zoning should be left the way it is now. Over • 1/2 of the attendance at May 10 meeting did not want the land use changed." "The current problems with traffic and land use are due to the incompetence of past planners working for the city of College Station. What reason is there to think that the current planners are any more capable?" "When the 'little, old, gray-haired' lady asked about the size of trees expected in a buffer zone, the answer '2-inch caliper' was completely misunderstood as a 2-inch tall tree. A question like that should receive such information as height and diameter or trunk." GENERAL COMMENTS: "The June 21 meeting went far better than the May 10 meeting." "The reported number of instances of staff positions on issues being reversed /rejected by Commission or Council was remarkable. I would have expected a better record." • "I hope that the safety of the region in question will be held as the highest concern: the people, the land and the entities that inhabit it and also the property values of the homeowners who are citizens of this community as well as substantial taxpayers. Remember that decreases in property values do not solely affect the homeowner. Consider the revenue that goes into paying city employee salaries." "The HOA's have not been working directly with the landowners. Wayne Rife has been talking with Chuck Ellison & 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." U • "It was one of the residents who spent many hours working with land owners originally. The issues have not changed -The land owners took a risk with investments. No matter what is done when they sell if the will make aprofit -just not make as much as they would like. We need to stay with the 99 land use plan." "College Station has a long way to go on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. You have serious traffic issues now -and more too come. You need to develop a solution. Between College Station and TxDOT planning, I have heard inadequate planning & solutions offered. The deed restrictions plan appears to be inadequate. More interface is needed between HOA, landowners, & city." "Staff seems ready to "approve" most items -how much investigation and knowledge do these people actually possess of the neighborhoods involved?" "Continue to review previous plan and compare to proposed plan- committees to review specific aspects before next large group meeting -have subgroups present pros/cons and • recommendations." "To the property owner -Just say "N0." Think of the citizens of CS who live in the affected areas. Do we see apattern -staff always recommends approval - do you not understand the impact on the neighborhoods?" "When this property was purchased -the neighborhoods were already there. Just leave the zoning as it is. We don't want more retail!!! We are surrounded!! There are just so many unknowns -this is a disaster in the making." "Please provide 4 months to complete the following items: 1. Negotiations between area homeowners and property owners to find a reasonable solution. 2. Complete, independent traffic survey reported to homeowner association's property owners private prior to amending CLUP & going to P&Z." "It seems developers/investors stand to make a profit on sale of land while homeowners may see value of home decrease." • • "We (the City) have a recent plan (2000) why change it to accommodate 5 or fewer investors. It was acceptable just 5 years ago. Why is it not still valid?" "Perhaps owners cannot sell land at asking price because it's too high. They took a change 25+ years ago. Why should neighborhoods have potential decrease in property value to protect their investment?" • • Rezoning History in the Sebesta/Woodcreek Area • The City had several rezoning requests in this area approximately 10 years ago. Staff recommended approval in each case with various conditions such as requiring a master plan of the area, buffering, step-down zoning classifiications, and limiting commercial access to Sebesta Road. Residents' concerns were generally focused on cut through traffic and unacceptable land uses in close proximity to neighborhoods. CASE (94-112) • • REQUEST: 15 acres along frontage road at the corner of Sebesta & Highway 6 to C-1 General 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. ~-~ ~4 a ~f ~ a~ y CASE (94-119) REQUEST: C-1 General Commercial and C- 3Light Commercial along the bypass, R-4 Low Density Apartment adjacent to the Ledbetter properly, 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: P8cZ 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. C7 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. d c-~ 1 G~ $ ~~~ • CITY COUNCIL: The applicant withdrew the request prior to City Council. • • • CASE (96-100) REQUEST: M-1 Light Industrial for the Texas Digital properly. 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 ofFcially 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. ~~ c~ a ~^ A ~~~ • 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 IS 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. 3. The property should be developed to reduce the effect of pollution on adjacent properties. This pollution includes light/glare, air pollution and noise pollution. 4. The ultimate use of the property should preserve the property values of the adjacent residential areas. 5. The development of the property should be sympathetic to the traffic impacts on surrounding areas. These traffic impacts can include: a. The time the traffic visits the site; b. The amount of traffic (density) attracted to the site; c. The type of traffic (criminal activity, teenagers); and d. The frequency of the traffic. • • The participants also listed the land uses that would be acceptable and unacce table on the site. P The acceptable uses included: The following us 1. • 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. The land uses should reflect the uses listed in the HOK Plan. 2. Planned Unit Development (PUD) with patio homes or single-family townhQtnes 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 es were suggested to be unacceptable at this location: -Automotive body shop Apartments Large retail (such as a Wal-Mart or Office Depot) Auto dealers Oil field supply/pipe laydown yard Night Club 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. • JAN. 19. 1996 2:54PM FROM MUNSCH PHONE N0. 1214E5575E4 • DRAFT Jaeu~ry 19,1996 Meeting with Bob Bower ' and East Bypass Area Property Owners and Homeowner's Associations Tuesday, January 16, 1996 7:30 - 10:00 PM Texas Digital Systems' Offices The purpose of thls meeting was to allow Bob Bower to present his proposal for a new headquarters for Texas Digital Systems. Inc., on a 34-acre parcel east of the East Bypass and south of Sebesta Road, to the surrounding property owners and Homeowner's Associations. The meeting was facilitated by City Council Member Nancy Crouch, representatives from the Woodcreek, Emerald Forest, Foxfire. Stonebridge, Shadowcrest and Amberlake neighborhoods and representatives of the owners of the subject property participated in the meeting. Jane Kee, the City Planner for College Station~nd two staff planners also attended this meeting. A complete • list of the participants can be found attached to this docromeat. The meeting began with Council Member Crouch setting the agenda and ground rules for the current meeting and by Ms. Crouch reviewing the outcomes of the first mceting wit11 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. 2. Planned Ut1it Development (PUD) with patio homes or single-family townhomes ~ 3. ~/M-1 Light Manufacturing . 4. Government Uses avP , 5. Churches tuP 6. Service uses a. daycare cc~P b. dry cleaner c. video store d. pharmacy e. quality restaurant ~. ~''~.ight Retail ~ 8. Retirement housing No • 9. /Professional offices The group also reached consensus that the following uses were unacceptable at this location: JHN. ly. 1~'Jb ~:55PM P 8 hHJNSCH PHONE N0. 12146557584 • DRAFT January 1~,1~i6 1. Automotive body shop 2. Apartments 3. F.arge~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 Dalilstrom 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 Sower 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 Scamardo, 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 diswssion 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 architectural 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 agrxd to sell a portion of the no-build area to the adjacent property owners if there is interest in the proposal and if the property owners agreed to erect a fence between the two uses. Council member Crouch then opened the discussion on the merits of- the proposed project. Generally. everyone was supportive of the project itself, but there was agreement that the residential property owners did not trust the City's development system to guarantee that the project would be built as promised. if at all. Mr. Martyrs expressed his opinion that no rezoning should be approved before the Comprehensive Plan, currently being prepared by HOK, was adopted and the new Mixed-Use zoning classiflcadon was developed. Other issues that the surrounding property owners had concerns about included: 1, Who was going to guarantee that the offered deed restrictions would be enforced? Would the City be responsible for the enforcement, or would the property owner be responsible? 2. The traffic circulation issues in the area must be addressed. It was suggested that the Technology Park construct an additional access point from the Bypass service • road, which would be in addition to the access point from Behests Road. There was also a discussion of techniques to "calm" the cut-through traffic that residents FROM MUNSCH .7 JHN. l`J. 1 J7b ~: rj$ PHONE NO. : 12148557584 DRAFT Jsnu~ry 19,1996 of Emerald Forest arc now experiencing. • 3. There was concern abort the development of the front half of the property. This property is not part of the currant 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 tha front part. 4. ?here was also a concern that this rezoning would set precedence for the remainder of the property along the By-pass. 5. 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 number of the audience wanted to know if the use of the project would be environmentally friendly and if then 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 asked what they liked about the project, the audience stressed that they liked the proposed plan and this plan was much better than any other development proposal chat 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 each participant will be sent a copy of tha 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 initiated rezoning of the property if the • proposed plan is, begun within a specifiad period of time. ~v , JAN. 19. 1996 2:56PM P10 MUNSCH PHONE NO. 12140557584 • DRAFT January 1!, i!!6 4. The "no-build" area must be maintained by sll 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 developmern process. P:\REAL130Z1\1\RBStJLTSZ.DOC 1 rb 1/18/96 C7 • Regular Agenda 11 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) • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Planner Report Date: January 9, 2006 Email: jprochazka@cstx.gov Meeting Date: January 19, 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 to 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. 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 those meeting are included with this report. 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- PAdministrative Professional, and C-1 General Commercial. In each case the proposed rezoning of this property was in concert with proposed rezoning on adjacent properties. Ultimately, the City Council denied the requests because of citizen concerns of traffic and land use adjacencies. Commission Action Options: The on the question of rezoning, which The Commission options are: 1. Recommend approval; 2. Recommend denial; 3. Table indefinitely; or, 4. Defer action to a specified date. Commission acts as a recommending body will be ultimately decided by City Council. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Application 4. Neighborhood Meeting Notes NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 1-03-06 and 1-24-06 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 1-19-06 Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 2-9-06 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 21 Response Received: None as of date of staff report • t A m e r ''' d, e ~ W ~ n W ~ ~ m o ' 0~ ~ ~ {3'. m t 'P ~o r' o w p ~ ~ Cf ~ ~ C me m ~ q e / \dl ~ .w. _ ._ e ~J U Z Z O ~~ Y e A m h ~ ~~~~~ O e ' h e~ m ~ ~.w bD ~ R Oll R^ r ~ ~ ~ ~ rv ~ N ~ r ». n '~ DR ¢ e ~ ~ o a ~ p (x~) R ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~Uo a ~f00. F~ i' ~ ~,~E e ~~ N ~' e o a K~ ~, ~- p R ~ ~ e ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ e ZS °W c ~'~ a D~ e m a e R e d'p o iG <Y~ w m e ^' m D^ a ~: `tl~ ~ U° ~ N' ' ~ r ~:d~n D e n ` r ~ ~i~ so' G~~ o F ~b ~"~'o 4y (Q U LL O a ~ ~~ sags oo ~~ ~ o '~ ~ ~ (A Z_ ~ ~ H ~ w _ ~~ a ;, ~ <~. ~ s ~ - ,~_; ~ r .~ w ~ , 71 ~ ~ o ~,~y d To ' ~ ~ e ~ c-~ ~ 1 ~ a S h ~~ ~' e m ~ ' _ u w . (Eglp RUDDER FREEWAY 90U21D ~ ~ :~ ^ ~ ~' m ~ e O ''~1 L m' ~ ~ ~, g y ~':: ~~~ ~b$d ~ W d ~' ~ ~ e ~ < `P v^ 18 1 ~ tlt ® Z o ~ ~ ''~ ~ g ~ W IL~I1~}f_I , ~ N + ~ c 6 30 C -7 ,.7 .,. M ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ A m m ~ fO ~~ e Y n ~ ~ fa '6 ^ IC ~ J X H `~ ~ ye ~ ~ g ~ J _ 1 ~1 S' i x t Fl ~ f e~ D ~ N ~ ~ OI - 'e a ` ~ , ~ Y + ~n ` / W as rc ~ e~ ~ ~ p a~ ~ - ~' ~ R ~ l0 ~ N IK rc 4 ° ~ ~ g a ~ m ~ g ¢ m ~ 'Om+v~ F ~ e ~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~~ o A ~~ „o'n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f ~ ~ ~ ~ N u = ~ Ui r. ~ ~ ~ IR ~ m ~ ~ ' _ ~ Z ~ __ O~ ~~ ~ ~J m ~ m ~ G ' ry ' ' O ^ ~ ~ W T70RMAND OR e w R F ~ ~ n ~ ~ ` N ' iR CJ Ll" ~ ~ / ES ~ . t ~ o A ~ e o ' ~iO nm H ` _ ~ ZS f F R s o ~, - ~ ~ R M • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d Dtvelopment Servicer FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO. DATE SUBMITTED ' ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING) APPLICATION as 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 & Zoning Commission or City Council. The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for consideration: Application completed in full. $500.00 application fee Two (2) copies of a fully dimensioned map on 24" x 36" 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. All public and private rights-of-way and easements bounding and intersecting subject land. W ritten legal description of subject property (metes & 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: 14 March 2005 ~PLICANT'S INFORMATION: Name: Charles A. Ellison Address 302 Holleman East / PO Box 10103, College Station, Texas 77842-0103 E-Mail: chuck(~ellisonlaw.com Phone Number: 979/696-9889 Fax Number: 979/693-8819 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name: East Bypass Development Group Address: 3001 Rustling Oaks, Bryan, Texas 77802 E-Mail: atkinsonC~?fabtexas.com Phone Number: 979/361-6285 Fax Number: 979/361-6233 This property was conveyed to owner by deed dated 16 July 1979 and recorded in Volume 428, Page 297 of the Brazos County Deed Records. General Location of Property: SE corner of Sebesta Road and the Earl Rudder Freeway E. Frontage Rd. extending south to the developing church property on Woodcreek Drive (see map) Address of Property: NA Legal Description: Attached Acreage -Total Property: 49.285 Acres Existing Zoning: R&D, R-1, A-O Proposed Zoning: C-1 ~esent Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Retail 6/13/03 Page 1 of 2 '~. ZONING SUPPORTING INFORMAT~ tl 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. It is now known that that will not occur and the owners are seeking the zoning of the adjacent tracts to the north and south (C-1). Also, two very significant local code changes have occurred since the adoption of the present comprehensive plan. They are the Neighborhood Protection Standards and the Non-Residential Architectural Standards, which contain the requirement for a traffic impact analysis. These changes, not anticipated at the time the current plan was adopted, provide for much greater protection and buffering for 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 designations were automatically applied as "holding" districts with the code requiring the appropriate designation be given the property by the City within a year of the date of annexation. However, no subsequent reconsideration of the zoning took place. 2.) Indicate whether or not this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. If it is not, explain why the Plan is incorrect. The requested zoning is not in compliance with the current plan; however, a comprehensive plan amendment was submitted prior to this application. Favorable consideration of that application will ~ave this request in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3.) List any other reasons to support this zone change. Limited access to and from the bypass will make high-intensity commercial development unlikely on this tract. The depth of the property will help promote flexible and more appropriate site design. The depth will also buffer impacts to area residences. The rezoning will allow for the furtherance of the following goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan: - Higher intensities along major roadways (Obj. 2.2); - Infill development within he existing sewershed (Obj. 1.2); - Avoid strip-commercial by locating at the intersection of two major roadways (Obj. 1.3) The applicant has prepared this application and supporting information and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. IFAPPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A POWER OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER. Sig ture of owner (or agent) or applicant •~ ~5 Date 6/13/03 Page 2 of 2 ~ ~-d5 - ~~ ~~ ~ ~;,, ~Zc~ : 05 - ~3 ~.~- IPS Grou p • ~ Flanning Solutions 511 University Drive, Suite 211 College Station, Texas 77845 December 2, 2005 City of College Station, Development Services Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner 1101 Texas Avenue South College Station, Texas 77840 Re: The Atkinson/Shoup Tract generally located on Highway 6 between Woodcreek Drive and Sebesta Road Dear Jennifer, As you know, the East By-Pass Development Group and their representatives have been meeting with homeowners' representatives 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 the past several months. These requests are revised as follows: Cor prehensive Plan Amendment: My cUent is requesting to change the land use plan from RBtD Research & Development to Retail Regional and Office as per the attached drawing. Rezoning reQUest: Concurrently, my client requests a rezoning for the property south of Technology 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 schedule will be: Planning & Zoning Commission -January 5, 2005, and • City Council -January 26, 2005. Please let me know if there is addirional infon~nation you need to proceed. Sincerely, R. Kee, AICP 979.846.9259 www.ipsgroup.us • Woodcreek /Sebesta Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposal Neighborhood Meeting Notes Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:30 - 9:30 p.m. Holy Cross Lutheran Church 1200 Foxfire drive The purpose of this meeting was to present a revised land use plan in the area of Sebesta Road and Woodcreek Drive and gather feedback from the adjacent neighborhoods. All residents of Foxfire, Woodcreek, Sandstone, and the southern portion of Emerald Forest, and all Home Owners' Associations were invited to the meeting. Approximately 185- 200 residents were in attendance. The following are a list of concerns and preferences expressed by the residents at the meeting: Land Use: ^ Would prefer to have Industrial next to single family homes Office land use designation and A-P Administrative Professional • zoning may be appropriate adjacent to neighborhood uses ^ Appropriate use next to single family is a park ^ Concerned with retail adjacent to homes in Woodcreek ^ C-1 permitted uses not acceptable in this location ^ Concerned with the future location of Wal-Mart ^ Do not want `big box' or car dealerships ^ Concerned that the neighborhood may be `boxed in' by retail ^ Some neighborhood scaled retail may be appropriate, but not next to the neighborhood ^ Concerned with noise from retail establishments, ie: public address systems next to homes ^ Concerned with flexibility of Planned Development. The Planned Development designation is too nebulous ^ Texas Digital property and the associated greenway should not be shown as `Planned Development' ^ Would like single family to remain on the Ledbetter tract (even though it may cause similar issues in the future) ^ Greenbelts should be provided along highways ^ Commercial along highways is not aesthetically pleasing ^ Do not want any high density residential, multi-family, or duplex Concerned with what might be developing on highway south of • Rock Prairie Road • Tran sportation: ^ Concerned with how retail traffic would get in and out of area ^ Concerned with existing traffic problems at the Rock Prairie bridge ^ City needs to take a closer look at how the proposals with increase traffic in the area or change traffic patterns ^ Traffic increase on Emerald Parkway ^ Concerned that no traffic plan was presented at meeting ^ Concerned with cut-through traffic from development south of Rock Prairie Road • Need overpass between Emerald Parkway and Rock Prairie Road for retail to be appropriate in this area ^ Why is a Transportation Impact Analysis not done earlier in the process (with most intense use for site) ^ City needs to work more closely with TxDOT ^ Need to look at Thoroughfare Plan to deal with increasing traffic ^ Concerned with the TxDOT changes. Concerned that TxDOT is perusing changes regardless of land use decisions ^ Need to coordinate land use plan with TxDOT plans, and TxDOT should coordinate with City land use plans • Need a signal at the Emerald Parkway underpass Drainage: ^ Concerns with drainage and impervious surfaces from new developments ^ City needs to expand definition of the floodplain Other concerns: ^ Concerned with potential adverse affect to property values ^ Existing buffer required by ordinance is not large enough ^ Concerned with the substitutions allowed for the buffer. Would like for the neighborhood to be able to decide which option is used ^ Concerned that Texas Digital buffer / greenway is not adequate or will be changed ^ Feel that proposal does not protect integrity of the neighborhood ^ Feel that City Council will disregard neighborhood concerns because of the desire to increase sales tax generating properties ^ Concerned that P&Z and Council may not be watching out for neighborhoods ^ 1995 agreement' addressed these issues -these should be used • as the current guidelines • Concerned that property owner can circumvent the process and work out a 'deal' with the City Council ^ Concerned about future applications to change land use plan again. Concerned with zoning process and replatting of existing unbuildable lots *When those in attendance were asked to stand if they supported Industrial remaining on the Plan for the area bound by Sebesta, Woodcreek Subdivision, and Our Savior's Lutheran Church (under construction), the majority stood in support. • r~ • 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 traft'IC 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 • C7