Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02/02/2006 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning Commission
FILE COPY CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d Dcvclopmcnt Scrvica AGENDA Workshop Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, February 2, 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 consent and regular agenda items. 3. 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) 4. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings. - February 9, 2006 ~- Joint Workshop with City Council - March 3, 2006 ~- Planning and Development Services Department Forum, Conference Center, Room 127, 11:30 a.m. - April 22-26, 2006 ~ APA National Conference, San Antonio, Texas - October 18-20, 2006 ~ APA State Conference, Corpus Christi, Texas 5. Presentation, possible action an discussion regarding Parking Requirements. (KF) 6. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the Northgate Ordinance. 7. Presentation, possible action and discussion regarding the process of scheduling, advertising and updating the Unified Development Ordinance. 8. 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. 9. 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 2nd day of February, 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 Hail, 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 ail times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on 7anuary 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 I"IY 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.aov. Planning and Zoning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19. • shop Agenda Item 3 ble action and discussion V11 all 1l.C111 ~V u~,udte the Commission on the status of items within the P&Z Plan of Work. (LS) ~i 1r-~, u N G~ ~ n~ . : V~ N ~ ~: ~O ~O Rr ~"' , QO -O 'Zt ~ Q' ,`7 ~ `n O N ~O O O p O O oN N ~ „a ° ~ ~ a °~ a ~ w w ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ .~ :~ ~ ~ on ~' ~ b ~ ~ . ~ O ~ °~' ~ °~' a o ~ t~yy ~S N ~3 0 ~ ~ on ~ O ~ '' a.a ~ „ ~ ~ ~a, A.' ~ ~ . `~ ~° aa N ~ ~ .~ ~ U a i b ~ .~ h ~ p° U o '~ v P. o +b ~y ° °? ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ y ~ N ~ ~ v ~ ^d O GL +-~ b ~ aqi ~ -d N ' C ~, O y O O O ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b O ~ A +~ ~ ON . ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ° a ~, ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ a~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~" ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a, a ~--i ~ w ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' a~ a~ a~ a~ "'" ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q ~ ~ o ~ Q Q Q .,~ ~ ~ " U ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ b~ ~ ~ ' a ~ ~ ~ a a' o ~ ~ a, ~ a, ~ ~ ~ ~ o b ~ a a ~ ? '~ , .~y ~ y 'ZS~' N ~ N a.+ ~ ~S bq 'b } ~.U y Q N Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~ cd ~ ~ ~ '""~ ~ ~° CS Ci ~o ~ ~ ~ O N ~~' ~o , v, a y ~., :~, Ca ~ v~ ~ . ~ on ~ o .~ ~ 'er ~. A ~ ~ ,~ ~n w v • •b ° o ~ v ~ ~ .~ U `' '~ U U~ U 3 U .~ on O ~ U ~ . ~ ~ ~ br0 .~ C% . ~. ~ .U . ~ ~ b yy ~ 1.~1 .~ „?, ~" "C7 ~ O ~ O . ~I °~' ° o ~ ° '~ o ' ~ ?' '~' ~ b ~ ° o a°qi ~ a ~~' ~ pa ~ "Ld ~ ~°, ~ a o a~ :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ A v '~ A: A gg Y ~~ ~ a a' ~ q 7w 7 a . c NC s C70 ~ ~ ~--~ N M ~ ~O [~ 00 O 7 C f0 .y N J c•~a a v 0 d m a C ,'. • ~ ,~ •~ ~ U - ~ U ~ ~ y ~ U . 0 ~, a° ~ o p N ~ ~+ .° fi. ~ .~, .a ~,; ~ ._ ~ a ~ V ~ N .~ ~ a~ A ~ +`4 b4 °~ ~ y A o ~. 3 b a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -d o ~ ~' a ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ U o ~ ~ q ~' ~~ a ~ `y °~~U ~ ~ VJ a U , ~ ~ N r~ on ~./ ~ ~ ~ o U N O o ~ ~ -o ~~~ .~UV a w ~ -a ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ . r, ~ y C~'' ~ N w ' ~ ~ ~ ~ N '~ pp~~,, 4 7 ~ ~ ~ W - U .d ~• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~i v~ ,~ O NC1 > > r~ C!~ i Vj . O ""~ ti C b ~ O ~ ~ ~ ^~i ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ v G ~ c~a a~ ~ -a ~ v ~ ~ ~ 'zs .~ v ~ ~ ~ . -i ~ a ~ ~ ss. ~ ~ a o ~ o O v W o o o ~ _ • a1 ~ a .a b ~ a .n v ~ .a -d ~ -o '~ ~ ~ N :~ oA ~'° ~ o ~:~ ~.o ~b ~a b \ ~:~ ~~ ~ O ~ ~ O ~ O ti ~ y b O .. U y p a> ~ ~ ~ ~ 'v a~ ~ ~ ~ a~ O ~ .-. •~ b a~ ~ ~ . ~ ~, a~ O ~~ ~ r ~ ~ h N ~ U 'j ~"bq O ~ U •~ X0.0 o ~ U •s ~Oq O U •~ ~ O ~ ~ x ~~o; ~~~~ ~~o; ~~~b ~~o; ~ ~~b ~,~o~ ~s~~ ~ ~ V w ~ I~~ a ~ U ~ ~~," ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ,~ •~ ~ ~ o .o ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~~ ~. U a a 'b ~ ~ ~ ~ a '> a, > > ~ .~ a~ ~ '~ a ~ ~ '~ '~ o ww° A Avg Aar' 0., ° ~vU wwA N M ~ ~ N t'f cn 0 Z m c m CO N N J T m a v 0 N a~ rn m i• C] • '~ a +~ o ^+ ° U ~ . ~a ~~ A O O ,~ 'a ~ N , H ~ ~ az .~ ° N z A 3 • ~ ~ J .w w ~; O CFy w y O ~ Q ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ o .~ ~ ~ . ~ . A b o a E U '~ ° A .~ v~ N :~ H a x . RS °~ a _ ~ ~ ~ v ~ L , ~ p ~ ~ ~ • ,.w i, p pp d4 3 , ~ a ~' w c~ O a'N cQ U Y 3w a~ a ~ ~i ~o 0o ri "' ° o o "~ 0 0 0 '^ ° ° o 0 0 N 0 0 0 o N W O ~ o ~ ~ N ~ a oo N ~ ~ ~~ O ~ N ~ ~ ~ O ~ y bq .~ o~ >° a~~o ~ o~ U ~ O ~ o b .~ ~'~ ~N ao ~ ~•^p„a U o p a o ~~~ „ w ~ x H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w v .~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ a a i a i a i ~ ~ a a~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O~i U U U U U U U v° o w > o :~ ~~ A~~ ~~ o .~ .o ~. o a. ~ .~ 0 ~ o ~ o ~ •~ ~ w c U ~ ~ _ i ~ ~ _ O ~ ~ L1. i v .-.. ~ ~ ~-. .U U .~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ a w ~ y ~ ~ ~ z U ~ ~~ w o ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ °' ~ U ~ b .sC W ~ .b ~. °' a ~ '.c.~., o . ~ ~ . ~ a o ~ ~~ y o~ ~ o~ ~ °~~' ~ ~, ,,~ ~~ U ,¢ ~ a on ~ .~ ~ ~ a~ ~ U U y ~ ,'ogno ? o ~a~ xa Uu"pq A3 xA H ~Ua; ~° oNGU~ zw° ~ d _ P4 _ U U U _ A A Q • ~ ~° .~° Q„ ar ~ o z z • U ° b o .~ .~ a ~ ^ A ,~ V I y . O 5 ^ ~r~r ~ •~~j+ N ~; . Fi U Fi U ~ O y y Q '~ Q Q c°~ z o ~' b~ b~ o ~ o0 ~~ 00 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ c ~ v ~ ° ~ xx ~ ~ a~x v `" ~ ° y ~ ~ ,o ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a a .~ N ~ a a ~ a ~i ~ ~ .~ ~ ~' ~ '~ a~ ° o 3 U •v ~ V h a b ~ a ~ ~ ,a~ ~ .,:; ~ h o w w ~Uda ~ > d w •~ ~ `~ o N o ~' ~ .~ ~ ~ a o N ~ `~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ a ~, a. v •'~" ~ .~ a a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ a. ° U v ~ ~ • ~ ~ a°i ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ •~ a ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ .~ a ~ ~ ~ ° cC 0 m a c R -~ cG N iii J .~ v 0 v m m a • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning er Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue South, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 25, 2006 TO: Planning & Zoning Commissioners FROM: Joey Dunn, Director of Planning & Development Services SUBJECT: Northgate ordinance At the request of the Planning & Zoning Commission at the January 19 meeting, Staff has put together background information on the proposed Northgate Ordinance. Attached to this memo are • items such as the process timeline, public meeting notes, and Staff responses to public input for your consideration. It is anticipated that the ordinance draft and accompanying list of changes will be given to the P&Z and made available to the public on February 2. Background Information: In 1996, the Northgate Revitalization Plan was adopted to encourage public and private redevelopment and revitalization in the Northgate area. Later that year, the Northgate Ordinance established the zoning districts and development standards for this unique area of town. It created three districts: NG-1 Core Northgate containing historically significant commercial structures and applying to areas containing pedestrian-oriented retail and entertainment in close proximity to on-campus dormitories, NG-2 Commercial Northgate serving as the transition from more suburban-type commercial development to an urban environment, and NG-3 primarily being the residential area of Northgate. Since 1996, several public projects, including the parking garage and roadway and utility improvements, have been completed or are underway, so in 2003, the City Council adopted the Northgate Redevelopment Implementation Plan to incorporate what had been done and strategies for further private sector redevelopment. The Northgate Redevelopment Implementation Plan was developed by a consultant with the help of stakeholder and public input. It envisions a unique, pedestrian-friendly, dense urban environment. The sections of the UDO that regulate aspects of the Northgate zoning districts are being updated to help encourage development and redevelopment in the area that will move towards the traditional neighborhood development desired for the area. While minor amendments have been made to the Northgate Ordinance over the years, because of the new plan, City staff started an earnest endeavor in 2004 to rewrite the ordinance. In 2004 and 2005, Staff met with the Design Review Board several times to gather their insight since they are currently the body responsible for the review of all new and significant development proposals in Northgate. There was also a joint meeting of the DRB and Parks Board to discuss • concepts related to public open space opportunities in Northgate. In January 2005 Staff held three public meetings to which Northgate property and business owners were individually invited and the Home of Texas A&M University • public in general was invited to attend. At each of these meetings ordinance concepts were discussed, many of which relate to traditional neighborhood development, and feedback was gathered. Staff took the public input back to the DRB for their thoughts, then began the process of drafting a new ordinance. Economic Development, Planning & Development Services, and Legal met numerous times through the following months, working on the details that are hoped to foster an easier and more predictable development process. The ordinance process to that point was described to the City Council on August 8, 2005 where it was met with positive comment. A public meeting was held in August (in which Northgate property and business owners were again individually invited to attend) to go over the ordinance draft and receive input. To respond to a suggestion made at the meeting, an outside consultant (TIP Strategies, Inc. out of Austin) was hired to review the draft. Staff has made changes to the draft based upon the consultant's report. There have been repeated comments received since that time via phone calls, e-mails, a public speaking engagement, and the UDO Annual Review public hearing held by the P&Z on January 5, 2006. Most of these concerns are those staff has been aware of since last August and either disagrees with or did not act upon based upon conflicting public input. Attachments: 1. Location Zoning Map 2. Northgate Process Timeline from 2004 -Present 3. Northgate Ordinance Concepts Public Input Meeting-Traditions Dorm Qan. 12, 2005) 4. Northgate Ordinance Concepts Public Input Meeting-Traditions Dorm Qan. 14, 2005) 5. Northgate Ordinance Concepts Public Input/Feedback Received Meeting-CS Conference Center Qan. 18, 2005) • 6. Northgate Ordinance Draft Public Input/Feedback Received Meeting-Traditions Dorm (Aug. 31, 2005) 7. E-mail and attachment (with Staff comments added) from Larry Haskins (Dec. 12, 2005) 8. TIP Strategies, Inc. report • Home of Texas A&M University • 1~ORTHC~A1`E ZOl~INQ DIBTRICTB COLLEGE AV • • • Northgate Process Timeline 2004-Present 2004 October -December Discussions with DRB (10/18/04, 11/12/04, and 12/10/04) ..2005 - )anuary Public meetings over ordinance concepts (1/12/05, 1/14/05, and 1/18/05) Discussion with DRB (1/28/05) February Joint DRB/Parks Board meeting (2/11/05) February -August Staff meetings to draft ordinance (2/05 - 8/05) August Process discussed with City Council (8/8/05) Draft ordinance released to public • (8/17/05) Public meeting over draft ordinance (8/31/05) September Staff meetings to make draft changes September -October Consultant review of draft October Northgate ordinance consolidated into UDO Annual Review November UDO draft ordinance released to public (11/4/05) December P&Z and City Council Joint Workshop over the UDO Annual Review (12/14/05) 2006 January P&Z UDO Annual Review public hearing (tabled) (1/5/06) Northgate ordinance consideration separated from other UDO issues (1/19/06) • NORTHGATE ORDINANCE CONCEPTS PUBLIC INPUT MEETING -TRADITIONS DORM JANUARY 12, 2005 (primarily property owners) • Time frame for ordinance? • Grease/solid waste management? Interest in common grease traps instead of individual • Sidewalks relative to single family homes-limited space, particularly along First St.-PIP ordinance • Money set aside for drainage improvements? • PW is looking at regional detention for NG around Inlow, Cherry Spruce • , Public meeting to review ordinance draft is good • Concepts proposed are more restrictive to NG-2 • Vision statement-ordinance can't create density--allow economic demand to dictate • Lot of attention to redevelopment-triggering all current standards when any expansion is proposed-should include flexibility-allow improvements that bring development/redevelopment "closer" to the vision • New Ubanism-don't legislate it • Street trees-"wonderful idea", but check to see if they will work)-not against streetscape, planters may be better • Parking in front of businesses shouldn't be discouraged on perimeter of NG (Wellborn and S. College "won't become warm and fuzzy pedestrian areas") • • Facade articulation and maximum setbacks could present site planning problems- can these work together? • 50,000 sq.ft. maximum in NG-2 should be ground floor maximum • Allow fuel sales somewhere in NG • Drive thrus should be allowed-require placement behind building • Outdoor health club/sports facility-could work on roof? • Radio/TV station/studio could be done in urban setting • 20-ft. minimum height-16-18-ft. side and back facades should be acceptable-a height study should be made of desirable businesses (e.g., Pappadeaux) • Setbacks should be greater on Wellborn and S. College • Existing building approaches?-flexibility for redevelopment • Got in trouble for bricking up windows • Could churches develop in NG? Interest in an office building-would need to develop as any other office • Shell Zip In-grandfathered? Yes-dispensers/pumps replacement? Underground storage tanks replacement? Okay if not abandoned • Consider using ROW vs. public utility easement for utilities-concerns for omission of alleys • Old residential needs to be torn down and rebuilt, not given flexibility on standards- "closer to" the vision doesn't work • • NORTHGATE ORDINANCE CONCEPTS PUBLIC INPUT MEETING -TRADITIONS DORM JANUARY 14, 2005 (Primarily business owners) • Skate park in detention area? • Encourage murals-maybe let them count towards architectural relief • Don't become too regimented with architecture-don't want everything to look the same-want to be funky • Free parking options are good and would encourage parking in garage • "Mall" map is a good idea but will have to be updated frequently-who will maintain it? • Is there funding for underground parking? • Not adequate fire code enforcement-discourages the building of new bars/restaurants • Maybe there should be a minimum sq.ft. requirement for a site to be constructed • Fliers should be banned-they look trashy • Grauke: fliers are a good way to disseminate information • Monument signs should be allowed on University, S. College, and Wellborn • Off-site, directional monument signs should be allowed for hotels • Greater flexibility or a change of NRA standards is needed to promote more funkiness • 10,000 sq.ft. for a single retail tenant may be too small; consider Rothers and Hancock around 11,000 -12,0000 each; want to allow for CVS or Walgreens • 10,000 sq.ft. is not too small; don't want typical CVS or Walgreens • Be sure the ordinance does not prohibit rooftop cafes/porches • Grandfathering needs to take into account the expansion of existing non- conforming structures (e.g., adding on/expanding a porch or outdoor cafe) • • NORTHGATE ORDINANCE CONCEPTS PUBLIC INPUT/FEEDBACK RECEIVED MEETING - CS CONFERENCE CENTER JANUARY 18, 2005 • What about storage buildings that house maintenance equipment (e.g., mowers for the church)? • NDA would like to know how parkland dedication money will be spent-would like to have input • Parking caps should be scaled in relation to the distance from the garage, key streets • Expert input needed for street tree viability • Need vision statements with more commitment from City Council; wants Council to commit to providing parking, utilities in the ROW • The development of NG is a chicken-or-egg situation-City needs to commit to infrastructure (including parking) to allow residential and commercial development to happen • There should be an exception in NG-2 to allow dense, high-rise residential without commercial • Will need to define "office" for first floor use prohibition because some office is • retail-oriented (e.g., stock broker) • Does transparency work with nightclubs? Are there other options (e.g., look at Logan's) • A tax should be levied in NG to take care of infrastructure needs (not HOA or TIF, but he couldn't remember the name of it) • Parking caps will slow or stop development • The idea for NG development will not sell without parking • It has worked in other communities e.g., Penn State • Residents take up all the garage space-no room for business customers • Residents are business customers • Will the city bury existing electric lines? :; • • D 1`i r Q W Z Z D 0 W Q 2 H O Z `Z 1~ W W W W U W Y Q W W ~_ a z ...1 a r/ 0 N r M ~" N Q ^N ~. Q C L ~ C L a . Q U _ "p ` , ,- ~ ~ 7 L C ° O C O U c j O o U O f0 ~ V O ~S _ ° .L...~ .D y ~ 7 N ~ ` ' pp ( U C~ O o c ~ N ~ ' y. m ~p ~ Q • N C L 3 N ~ c Y N c a i ~' L -° cc a ~ ~ ~kf C ~ d'N ~ C ~ p ~ p ac '~"i" "- ~ Q 3 ~ ~ O ~ N O C w p • N N ~ C "a E fd -p ~+ ~ a?. O ' C O C f6 (D N ~ C f0 ~ 'y ~ ' ~ p ~ ~ O fA fA Ly Ly C_ C C N C O ~_ / J J Z Z O V ~ V L V V 9f i~. ~' h L ° Y- p ~v y ~))k,••,/ ~~„ ~+Sr~~_ ~ p _ L ~ C p ~ L ~+ ~ N ' L N 5 y ~ N > N y U ~ ~ ~ ~ >_ ~ 3 ~ N N O N N c x - L (0 y ~ ~ O c ~ a•°i N o o ~ ~ c ~ ° °~ o O s ~ , + ~ a v ~ ~. ~ ~ o rn ,c p m c ~. ~ 3 c • ~ v ~ ~ •- ~~ ~ fly, ~ ~ c f° •~ ~ ~ o o ~ oc`a c°i ~ r,,,~,ly., p ,,_, m ° ~ m co Z' a°i ° N ~O ° ~ m oL m o ~ _O E C ~ ~ +' ° N N ~, N N n~ ~1•'.c 'gyp O ` L O .+ X 0 0 0 f0 ~ C> ~ ~ O •. m • ° ~ L ° ~ U o ° ~' ~ o E ° a i ~ ~ ° ~?, ~ ~ C ~ O '~ ~ N ~ L ~ ~' eta t ~~,- ~ ~ O ~ C ~ ~ N L ~ 3 • C ~ + N U .. ~ = , ., O -6 O N cv c ( Y~ N o U o _ ~.. _ ~ ~ N N L N V ~ ~~ o ?' ~ ~ c ~ p c N N E . C c ~ N O i +~+ L ~"• ~,, ~ C rn ~ Z 3 ~ c N N ca . ,r ~ Vi'''' . a c N o ~ N V w O L .` ~ C c c ~m N~ _ ~ w N t L ~ ~ ~ C N ~ >, ~ ~ O ~ r-. p U O C ~ ` L .Q ~ ~ N L ~ ~' ° ~ gy _ a _ • ~ O ` m C9 ~° ~ aci N C7 ° p c°i c v a i °- L~ ~ ` ' p c~ •~ ~ ~ a o cn c~ z Q ~ w = z m Q w~ o ~ v, Q U • o .r ~° N ~ L to O ~ U L "'' - ~ - C L ~ W ~ O ~ C O ~ O O C w. ~' ~ N U_ ~ c ~ O O ~ t p N "O U •-~ N 3 Y ~ v ~ Qa o a i ~ ~ ~ ~° - v - u? ~ - ~ c a a o ~. v U cC N ~ O c t w N~'= O ~~ +. O N • 'O ~ O ) O N U O S ~ ~~ '~ Z L L U O N ~ N ~ L U . N fA O ~ L I- to - N R' Q .Q (d U N U C O N (n C (n v`- O O N ` c p Y Z, O ` ~ ~ L ~ (0 ' ~ ~ ~ ` . O O N ~ U O . ~ O ~ L O N ~ ` (~ +' N +-~ C ~ ~ ~ O m 3 m a~ L c~ m c m 3 ~ ~ N ~ o 0 0~ ~ ~ o 0 U rn ~ v ° ~ cwa c U r ~ O ., ~ ~ 3 c° ~ o a ~ ~ . `~ o ~ _ c > .c ' = t0 _•.. ~ '~ N 3 c ~ c ~~ a C cn C c O c -a N cn ~ O v~ N Y C 0 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ O +-• _ ~ O 'D ~ N~ ~-.. O O U C ~ O ~ L + c .~ ~. C ~ ~ ~ O w ~ _ .r O . . ~ N ~ • O -O C C O ~ N ~ O ~ pp C7 O N ~ O O O ..• ~ ~. O ~- •O ~ N •~ : C~ , ~ LQ ~ V O C O ~ C ~ C w ` +-+ O ` O N ~ .~ O ' 'O ~. O ~ ~ ~~ C Q c N N N N ~ ~ 0 0 0 ,d O O ~ ~C to O m uvi ° a ~ ~ ~ o ~ Y ~ ~ m a~ cv ~ ~ ~ -~ v w, +• L o O ~ ..: c , (0 Cam. ., . ~ ~ C c o ~ . (~ . (n ~ ~ .r O ~ ~ . O ~ C! L +, . _ v> L ~ ~ ,~ ~ N ,~ C Q L Q ~ ~ OQ L p ~ U ~~ ~O ~ O ~ ` ~ O ~ L O •~ ~ ~ ,~ O ~ L%1 cfl -~ I- (n Q li LK ~ ~ w m W 2 m U (~ • • • 0 ~ ~ ,_ ~ ~ co ~ w ~ . a~ E o ~ ~~ v ~ a? U .Q O ~ ~ O ~. ~ C ~ ~ U 'p N fV ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O -p -O ~ -O ~ ~ ~, "d N N o m ~ O N ~ ~0,, = f6 a C f0 C (~ N C C f0 "O N C N ` ~ C O ~, N ~ L U L U - O L U 01 C .C U O ~ x N O 4. a i U Z Z (q Z U Z N L ~-.. c~a o N ` E g . -p ~ C O O ~ N N ~ +L -. `Ot .~ N N O O a o •c o ~ p ~ m N ~ c ~ .a ~ rn ~ ~ .~. ~ is o ~ ~ ~ N -a c r• > O ~ ~ ~- O (q ~ .c ~ ~ ~ co c .~. "' ~ o ~ vi o c v a~ c o CT Y ~ N L ~ ~N 3 f0 ~ O ~ c 0 N N O ~ ~ IB O ~,,, O .L-. (~ E ~ ~ to -O L C N C ~ O ~ ~ ~ t0 .N •N E N N N ~ L N -p C O O f9 ~ (A ~ L O O ~ 9+ ~ (~ ~ N L O ~ > N +n y U O `~ ~ n. N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ Q ~ C O N ~ .a U ~ - Q ', O C ~ N N ~ N ~ O O N d ~ N ~+ N ~ O ~ N C O ~ ~ ` ~ 'O C C _ ~ w O O •~ N O c .N N ~ ~ a O (0 t U O C C+6 L O ~ ~' ~ O p ~ N~ s O p1 ~ O ~ ~ = U rn 'N me .N O 3 ~ ~ c ~ ~.~ -p X ~ ~~ ~ ~ O ~ c c ~ ~ .~ f9 p ~> ~ ~ 3 0 t/1 ~ ~ ~ _ ~ o ` C .C L N ~ L w ~ O R ' 'p C ~ C~ Q .-~ N .A N ~ ~ ~ tq 7 C ~ O C . L N O ~ N N~ t L N :, ' X ., C 7 O ~ u.. co ~ O ~ ~ U ~ ~ v) F- 4- Q y v) ~ cpo ~ m FL- O ~ Z ~ ~ Page 1 of 1 Molly Hitchcock - UDO Annual Review Discussion • From: <BCSTXLAW@aol.com> To: <rsilvia@cstx.gov>, <bwhite@cstx.gov>, <jhapp@cstx.gov>, <rgay@cstx.gov>, <slancaster@cstx.gov>, <cscotti@cstx.gov>, <nberry@cstx.gov> Date: 12/12/2005 7:04:16 PM Subject: UDO Annual Review Discussion CC: <shaferscott@hotmail.com>, <mhitchcock@cstx.gov>, <jack@stalworthonline.com> Honorable Council Members: I am writing to you on behalf of Culpepper Family, L. P., the owner of the shopping center land located west (northwest) of the corner of University Drive and South College Avenue, and commonly known as University Square. My client's property is located within the NG-2 Zoning Subdistrict bounded by University Drive, Nagle Street and South College Avenue. My client's property encompasses more than one-half of the land located within the NG-2 Subdistrict. The Subdistrict has been known as "Commercial Northgate"; the UDO changes include the re designation of the Subdistrict as "Transitional Northgate". My client concurs with the goal of a transition from suburban to urban, but asserts that the proposed UDO revisions do not allow for a bridge from the existing land use over to the mutually desired higher density uses. The proposed UDO revisions impose numerous new restrictions on development within the NG-2 Subdistrict. These restrictions have not been requested by either the owners of property within the NG-2 Subdistrict, or the owners of property adjoining the NG-2 Subdistrict. Considering the Council's previously stated high regard for • neighborhood integrity, my client's representatives are amazed that the City is considering making such drastic regulatory changes within a neighborhood, even though the neighborhood property owners have not requested and do not desire some of the changes. Some of the proposed UDO changes are appropriate. Some of the proposed changes are appropriate for and within the NG-1 Subdistrict ("Core Northgate"), but not for or within NG-2. As the City's consultant, TIP Strategies, Inc., comments, the three districts (Subdistricts) within Northgate are distinct and clearly represent different purposes for Northgate. I have attached, in both Word (doc) and Adobe (pdf) format, more specific comment on some of the proposed changes, and my client's related concerns. If you are having any trouble opening the attachments, please contact me. I would appreciate your forwarding this correspondence to the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I look forward to continued discussion with you related to the proposed UDO revisions. If you have any questions or comments related to my client's concern, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanking you for your time and public service, I am Respectfully yours, Lawrence J. (Larry) Haskins Attorney and Counselor at Law 1700 George Bush Dr. East #240 College Station, TX 77840 Tel: (979) 696-1444 Fax: (979) 696-3651 ~1 ~J file://C:\Documents and Settings\mhitchcock\Local Settings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 1/25/2006 Staff has added our responses to Mr. Haskin's document. All of our comments have been tracked. 2.2.D Powers and Duties of the Planning and Zoning Commission (Page 2-2): • Provision: The Planning and Zoning Commission is not empowered to hear appeals from Design Review Board denials of requests for deviations from either the Section 5.6.B. Northgate development standards or the Section 7.9 Non-Residential Architectural Standards. Also see Section 2.6 Summary of Review Authority (Page 2-11). Concern: Subjective decisions of the Design Review Board should be subject to appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission, as are other such decisions (see Section 2.6 Summary of Review Authority -Page 2-11). Solution: List the hearing of appeals from Design Review Board denials of requests for deviation or variance from Northgate development standards and Non-Residential Architectural Standards as a power and duty of the Planning and Zoning Commission. After looking at the Summary, Staff realized there was an oversight allowing an appellate body for alp appellate body. There should be one body that can hear appeals, then the issue may be taken. to a court ol~ Law; therefore, no action was taken on this specific request, but a change was made in the Summary to remove the one instance where there was an allowance for two appellate bodies and to remove the coltunn for "Court" as that is always an option for someone that believes there is a problem. • 3.S.C Site Plan Application Requirements (Page 3-18): Provision: Requires submission of elevation drawings, material legends and color samples "where applicable" for site plan approval. Concern: The site plan review criteria (see Section 3.5.E -Page 3-19) does not include criteria related to vertical design. The requirement of vertical design information as part of the site plan review process could require the applicant to incure significant additional expense prior to site plan approval. The vertical design information is and should be a part of the building permit application process (See Section 3.9.B.5 -Page 3-30). Solution: Except as applicable to the Wolf Pen Creek District, delete the new requirement for Non-Residential Architectural Standards information and material samples from the site plan approval process (but not the building permit approval process). Section 7.10 Non-Residential Archi ectural Standards does not apply to the Northgate Districts. 5.6.B.2.b.2 Additional Use Standards in NG-2 Traditional Northgate (Page 5-14): • Provision: Limits the allowable gross ground floor area of a single retail establishment within NG-2 Traditional Northgate to 25,000 square feet. • Concern: This provision would prohibit both a "boutique grocery", such as Whole Foods Market, and a multipurpose amusement complex, such as Dave & Buster's. Limiting the ground floor area of a single retail establishment to 50,000 square feet would achieve the arguably desirable consequence of prohibiting "big box" retailers such as traditional grocers, Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Lowe's, all of which presently require a ground floor area in excess of 75,000 square feet (if not 125,000 square feet). Solution: Allow up to 50,000 square feet of ground floor area to a single retail establishment within NG-2. The provision. would not prohibit the stated retail use, but would require them to build to a second story if building over 2,000 sq.ft., which would help to achieve the dense, mixed-use, urban goal of the Northgate area. There was public support given to this limitation at the August 31, 2005 public meeting over the Northgate Ordinance draft. A multipurpose amusement complex would not be considered '`retail" and therefore, would not have to meet this additional use standard. 5.6.B.2.b.3 Additional Use Standards in NG-2 Traditional Northgate (Page 5-14): Provision: Prohibits freestanding single tenant buildings within NG-2, except for casual and fine dining restaurants (not "fast food"), hotels and theaters. • Concern: Prohibitin sin le tenant freestandin buildin s within NG-2 w ul g g g g o d prohibit or discourage small pedestrian oriented kiosk buildings, banks, drug stores, a visitors' center, and single tenant office buildings. Solution: Delete the provision prohibiting freestanding single tenant buildings within NG-2. Allowing for unlimited single-tenant buildings works against the goal of a mixed-use district. The original proposal allowed for more single-use structures, but Staff agreed with the public support given to this limitation at the August 31, 2005 public meeting over the Northgate Ordinance draft and changed the draft. 5.6.B.4.a.4 Building Orientation and Access (Page 5-15): Provision: Provides that if a building has frontage on University Drive and South College Avenue, a public entrance facade should be oriented towards both right-of--ways. Concern: One problem with the entire Section 5.6.B.4 is that the Section talks in terms of a "building's right-of--way frontage". "Buildings" do not have right-of--way frontage; "building plots" have right-of--way frontage. If aright-of--way is a long distance from the building, a public entrance facade toward the distant right-of--way should not be required. • 2 Solution: Rework the Section 5.6.B.4 to talk in terms of building plots or premises (defined terms) as opposed to buildings. Further, delete multiple orientation and facade • requirements if a building on a building plot is located more than 150 feet away from all but one right-of--way. Staff is willing to rework. this section in regards to a building or building plot"s right-of- way frontage, but the proposal will end in the same requirement-that each building would require access from these two major streets. Should a building he part of a building plot, Staff would look at what a building's right-of-way :frontage was. Not only is the requirement for two entrances consistent with the requirements proposed for all properties in Northgate that have frontage on more than one street, the Northgate Redevelopment Implementation Plan identil-ies the areas in NG-2 along University and/or South College as underutilized or undeveloped and calls for enhanced pedestrian linkages along University and transportation linkages along South College. At the request of Mr. Haskins at the August 31, 2005 public meeting, a provision was made in the ordinance so that a property owner with frontage on South College and University may choose to which street to orient the primary entrance facade and which to orient a public entrance facade (lesser design standards). The ordinance proposal. allows the DRB to hear numerous requests to waiver from the standards for building orientation and building design standards. 5.6.B.4.b Building Transparency (Page 5-15): Provision: Requires that buildings be at least fifty percent (50%) transparent between zero and eight feet above ground level of the primary entrance facade, and at least thirty • percent (30%) transparent between zero and eight feet on the facade fronting other rights- of-way. Concern: Although this requirement may be appropriate within NG-1, the larger tenant uses contemplated within NG-2 make this degree of transparency impractical. Security oriented businesses such as drug stores, and certain entertainment venues, such as larger night clubs and theaters, would find this requirement difficult to achieve or undesirable. Additionally, the transparency requirement should not be applied to facades located more than 150 feet away from aright-of--way. Solution: In NG-2, require that at least one building facade be thirty percent (30%) transparent, and that one other building facade be at least twenty percent (20%) transparent, within the zero to eight foot level. • 'T'ransparency is being required to benefit pedestrian traffic (keep visual interest, encourage movement, etc.), not to benefit vehicular traffic. This provision is limited to the primary entrance Ca~ade and a single, public entrance facade when applicable. Because of previous inconsistencies in the draft and at the request of public comments made at the August 31, 2005 public meeting, the transparency standard. was changed to reduce the height of transparency area, give credit for transparency that extended to the ground, a.nd reduce the percentage of required transparency. All of these changes had the net effect of reducing the overall transparency requirement. The ordinance proposal allows the DRB to .hear waivers from the standards of building transparency. 3 5.6.B.4.d Roof Types (Page 5-16): • Provision: Prohibits shed, mansard and gambrel roofs, and restricts the hip and gable roofs. For reference, roof types are defined and illustrated in Section 11.2 (Page 11-18). Concern: There is no logical reason to require a flat roof if the eave height exceeds 24 feet. Many larger buildings within the Northgate District (i.e. Traditions), and anticipated hotel and conference center designs, incorporate architectural schemes using roofs other than a flat roof. Mandating flat roofs would result in a boring environment. Solution: Remove the roof type restrictions for buildings having a eave height in excess of 24 feet. The intent is to move to a more urban corm and move away from those that appear more residential. Parapets that allow for varying rooflines are allowed, and required when needed to screen mechanical equipment. Traditions does have a flat roof. 5.6.B.6.a Off-Street Parking Standards (Page 5-19): Provision: The provision prohibits surface parking closer than 200 feet from Church Street, unless located behind a habitable structure. Concern: This provision would make the rerouting of Church Street to align with TAMU's Spence Street impractical. Due to separation from available parking by • publicly dedicated right-of--way, and limited lot depth, parking areas (a driveway with a single row of parking) running perpendicular to Church Street will be required. Solution: Within NG-2, surface parking should be allowed adjacent to Church Street provided that no one expanse of the parking, including driveways, exceeds 75 feet. Current plans for Church Street stop short of realigning with Spence. It will be years if and when this happens-the ordinance can be amended at that time. 5.6.B.6 Off-Street Parking Standards (Page 5-19): Provision: Restricts surface parking on sites fronting on South College Avenue. Concern: These provisions would make a phased redevelopment of the University Square Shopping Center ("Old Albertson's") extremely difficult. There is no reason to anticipate a need for pedestrian orientation along South College Avenue within the foreseeable future. The need for pedestrian orientation is more likely to arise within, not around, the University Square site. Parking along the outermost perimeters of the Northgate District should be encouraged, not discouraged. Solution: Delete the off-street surface parking and circulation restrictions for the portions of building plots adjacent to South College Avenue. • 4 "Phis provision will allow for enough room for two single rows of parking and a drive aisle between a building and South College. It will not prohibit parking against South • College. This was proposed to help NG-2 act as the transition between suburban and urban environments. 5.7 Design District Dimensional Standards (Page 5-27): Provision: The Design District Dimensional Standards require that buildings have a minimum of two stories. Concern: Considering the anticipated over-supply of office space, and the extremely high cost of incorporating residential units above new commercial buildings, the two- story requirement will discourage development. Intensity of land use does not result from legislative fiat, but rather from economic demand. Solution: Within NG-2, impose a minimum eave height of 20 feet in place of the maximum two-story requirement. This minimum eave height will contribute towards a "high density" appearance, and will encourage two-story development where economically feasible, without excluding desirable one-story development from the NG-2 Subdistrict. The DRB will have the ability to hear waivers to the two-story height requirement. 5.7 Design District Dimensional Standards (Page 5-27): • Provision: Re uires a maximum buildin set back of 25-100 f q g eet. Concern: Imposition of a maximum setback from South College Avenue will make a "staged" redevelopment of the University Square Shopping Center extremely difficult. As stated above, there is no reason to expect an immediate need for pedestrian orientation along South College Avenue. Solution: Delete the maximum building setback requirement as relates to South College Avenue. At 100 feet, the maximum setback from the right-of--way against South College is the largest proposed setback in the entire Northgate area (approximately three times greater than that proposed for Wellborn Road). This was done to recognize the transitional character of the district and allow for parking against .the right-of=way. South College is already a corridor into A&M. Pedestrian and bicycle-friendly improvement requirement are proposed to facili ate the movement of alternative means of transportation and in and through the area as undeveloped property at the north end of NG-2 and NG-3 develops. 6.2 Use Table (Page 6-2): Provision: Prohibition of fuel sales within the Northgate Districts. • 5 Concern: Although this provision will delight owners of grandfathered existing fuel stations within the Northgate District, the prohibition with the Northgate District is not • desirable. Restricting fuel sales within an area forces vehicular traffic outside of the area, which is fuel inefficient, and results in decreased traffic and commercial activity within the area. Grandfathered existing fuel sales facilities will never be modernized. Solution: Instead of prohibiting fuel sales within the Northgate District, develop an architectural scheme providing for esthetically acceptable fuel distribution. Fuel sales are currently prohibited in NG-1 and NG-2. The proposal will add NG-2. As none ol~ the adopted plans for Northgate encourage increased vehicular traffic, it is thought that the two existing, grandfathered fuel stations can meet current needs for fuel. sales, and that new fuel sales may locate, alid are located, within appropriate commercial districts within '/~ mile of Northgate. 6.2 Use Table (Page 6-2): Provision: Use of drive-through windows within the NG-2 District is curtailed. Concern: Drive-through windows are a presently existing dominant use with the NG-2 District. Many retailers require drive-through windows as part of their marketing scheme. Although some retailers make exceptions for "urban" locations, there is no provision allowing a bridge from the existing suburban use to the anticipated and desired urban density. • Solution: Allow drive through windows as a permitted use within NG-2 Drive-thrus are permitted within NG-2 with supplemental standards. Staff had previously proposed to prohibit drive-thrus because they are believed to be in conflict with the encouragement of pedestrian activity. In a public input meeting over the Northgate ordinance, Mr. Haskins suggested allowing drive-thrus that would be wholly located underneath structures; thus the proposal that is up for consideration. r~ U 6 Clty of College Station -Northgate Redevelopment Ordinance Sean Garcetson, AICP TIP Strategies, Inc. E-mail: sean~tipstretegies.com 7000 N MoPac, Ste 305 • Austin, Texas 78731 Phone: 512.343.9113 Fax: 512.343.9190 INTRODUCTION TIP Strategies Inc. has been engaged by the City of College Station to review and assess the Northgate Redevelopment Ordinance, in the context of implementing the Northgate Redevelopment Plan, and to review for implementation issues that may or may not have been considered. In general, the Plan and Ordinance are very good. TIP offers a few points that should deserve more attention. A summary of TIP's comments is provided below. Overview Many cities and universities across the country have embraced a denser, pedestrian-oriented, live/work/play plan for areas surrounding universities. The Northgate Redevelopment Plan lays out a clear and bald vision for a similar area immediately north of and adjacent to the Texas A&M campus. If successfully implemented, this district can yield a thriving area in College Station that will have many benefits to the community and university including a higher tax base and increased sales tax. Indirect impacts of this type of a redevelopment strategy can yield a greater result. Studies have shown that creating a true live/work/play environment around a university results in a thriving place for young professionals, which often leads to increased entrepreneurship and a higher rate of retention of young professionals upon graduation from the university. Providing more informal spaces, such as coffee shops, . will encourage more networking among entrepreneurs and can result in a healthy entrepreneurial climate. Students are also more interested in remaining in the community where they attended college when it is a thriving environment to live, work and play. Assessment of Article 5.6-B -Northgate Districts The Northgate Redevelopment District is a good idea for College Station. The Northgate Redevelopment Ordinance is clear and concise, and should stimulate redevelopment in the district. The three districts within Northgate (NG-1, NG-2 and NG-3l are distinct and clearly represent different purposes for Northgate. The Ordinance also illustrates the pedestrian, bicycle and mixed-use intent of the Redevelopment Plan. In our opinion, the points below are the only areas that deserve additional consideration: • Graphics - It is noted that the City intends on adding graphics throughout the ordinance, but TIP cannot stress enough the importance of graphics so that users/developers may better understand the intent of certain provisions of the ordinance. The Urban Land Institute and the American Planning Association offer several resources through their product catalog that should be useful. Larger planning firms such as Fregonese & Calthorpe have an extensive library of graphics and pictures that could also be purchased. It may also be helpful to engage a local engineering firm to develop graphics that are specific to the ordinance. Using a local firm will give the City more feedback on how aspects of the ordinance could be implemented. Specific areas for graphic/illustration/image insertions include throughout the following sections: Building Design Standards, Off-Street Parking Standards, Sidewalk Standards, Landscape and Streetscape Standards, Sign Standards, and Outside Storage and Display Standards. You can never use too • many graphics to illustrate a point. TIP STRATEGIES I N C ~ City of Collage Station -Northgate Redevelopment Ordinance • • Shower stalls -The installation of shower stalls in non-residential areas will serve as a stimulus to employees who may wish to bike to work. The City could add a provision in the ordinance that grants additional density for the installation of shower stalls for employee use. • Sidewalk benches - It may be more appropriate and in the long-term more advantageous from an aesthetic perspective, to have the City or Management District develop and maintain all sidewalks, including the installation of landscaping, benches, street lighting, and bicycle racks. This would take the burden off the landowner/developer of installing some of this and allow for a more uniform look throughout the district. Detention Ponds -While it is understandable that the City would require on-site detention, this requirement will slow the process of infill development. If possible, waive the detention requirements and instead assess afee-in-lieu of to be used to upgrade the drainage system. Our understanding is that the City is currently considering the feasibility of waiving detention requirements for projects less than 2 acres. This would certainly address this issue for infill development. • • Outdoor cafe-style seating - In certain areas of Northgate, it may be advantageous to allow and/or encourage outdoor seating. Additionally, it may be worth considering the allowance of garage-style windows (which can be lifted up during hours of operation) that face the ROW to create an "open- air" feeling in restaurants. Implementation Issues Related to Northgate District The Northgate Redevelopment Implementation Plan is thorough in its approach to implementing the vision for this area of College Station. It is important to continually ask the question "If not for the Northgate District Redevelopment Ordinance and the Implementation Plan, what type of infill development would occur?" Many cities prefer a carrot approach to stimulate redevelopment by offering density bonuses, decreased setbacks, and similar incentives. College Station's approach to stimulate redevelopment is somewhat different. The redevelopment ordinance may not be enough to stimulate the infill development. With this in mind, the following points should be considered: • Public spaces -The quotes from Robert Gibbs are on target and should be considered during implementation. Specifically, public space for outdoor concerts, public art, and public parking lots should all be a part of the Northgate District. Management -TIP understands that some of the landowners within the Northgate area are interested in a Management District, but that at this time it has not been formed. The City should understand that if a separate Management District is not created, the City should be prepared from a resource perspective to maintain all public places and rights-of-way, and to implement several of the improvement projects mentioned in the Implementation Plan. TIP understands that millions of dollars have been allocated for specific improvements including sidewalks and infrastructure, yet maintenance and uniform design is very important to the success of the Plan. • • TIP STRATEGIES I N C . 2 City of College Station - Northgate Redevelopment Ordinance • Parking -TIP understands that several parking garages are under construction or consideration. It may be worth considering another parking garage in other areas of the district, based upon projected parking demand. However, on-street parking, where appropriate, should be mandated for the simple reason that most people like to park in sight of their destination. On-street parking also creates another buffer from the pedestrian and vehicular traffic. On-street parking should be parallel -not at-angle or perpendicular. These latter types of on-street parking types create traffic nuisances. • Professional Services - It would be worthwhile for the City to incentivize and recruit professional service firms to locate in this District. These employees will frequent other businesses during office hours and lunch hours, and will ultimately help these other businesses to succeed. The indirect effect is that additional pedestrian traffic from professionals will give the appearance of a thriving area. Incentives -The Chapter 380 grants that the City is willing to use for land cost buy-downs will prove to be very useful in implementation. The other types of incentives such as fee waivers can also be helpful. The City may want to consider fee-simple purchases of certain areas so that the City can then (through a competitive bidding process) offer the land to private developers with specific terms set forth by the City. Infrastructure improvements (see on-site drainage requirements below) will also stimulate investment. • Gentrification -Although property values remain relatively low in this area ($15-20 per square foot), results of redevelopment efforts across the country illustrate that as a community experiences success with redevelopment, property values increase substantially and housing for low to middle income households becomes out of reach. It would be worthwhile for the City to research different programs that can sustain a certain amount of affordable housing. One such method would be to incentivize affordable housing development if in a mixed use development 25% of the new units are guaranteed for households making less than 80% of the median household income (or below), There are several programs throughout Texas and the U.S. that could be useful for College Station including housing land trusts, non-profit affordable housing associations, and incentive programs for private developers to provide some amount of affordable housing. This may not seem like an issue to immediately address, but being proactive will ensure that individuals starting their career and fresh out of college can continue to live and work in College Station, TIP STRATEGIES , I N C . S CITY OF COLLEGE STATION • Planning er Development Services AMENDED AGENDA Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, College Station City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 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 Discussion and possible action on: Minutes -January 19, 2006, Regular Meeting 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 Preliminary Plat for Indian Lakes Phase IX, consisting of 441ots on 14.78 acres, generally located southeast of the intersection of Indian Lakes Drive and Arapaho Ridge Drive. Case #OS-500216 (JP/CC) 7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Conditional Use Permit • for WPC Condos to establish amulti-family use with residential uses on the first floor in the Wolf Pen Creek Design District consisting of 7.61 acres located at 305 Holleman Dr E, generally located on the north side of Holleman between George Bush Drive East and Dartmouth Drive. Case #06-500001 (TF/CC) 8. Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Text Amendment to Article 7.2. H of the Unified Development Ordinance, Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required for freestanding furniture sales and motor vehicle service areas. Case #06-500006 (LB) 9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an Ordinance Amendment of the Unified Development Ordinance consisting of items considered to be ministerial in nature based on the Unified Development Ordinance Annual Review. Case #OS-500023 (MH) 10. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance from Section 8-J.2 (Block Lengths) of the Subdivision Regulations for The Woodlands of College Station, and Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat and Replat for the The Woodlands of College Station consisting of four (4) lots on 90.69 acres generally located along the east side of Wellborn Road between Southwest Parkway and Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818). Case #OS-500242 (TF/AG) -AMENDED ITEM 11. 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 southwest of the intersection of Decatur Drive and Alexandria Avenue. The proposed land use plan classifications include a change from Residential Attached to a combination of Retail Regional and Single-Family Residential, Medium Density. Case #OS-500238 (LB) 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 the 2°d day of February, 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 sy Connie Hooks, City Secretary r~ U I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of College Station, Texas, is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, • Texas, and the City's website, www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on 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. • • •~ MINUTES Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission • .~ Thursday, ]anuary 19, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Council Chambers, College Station City Hall Planning e5' Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas ~. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: John ,~p~',. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Scott Shafer, Commissio ers Dennis Christiansen, Bill Davis, John Nichols, Ken Reynolds, Marsha Sanford, and Harolc~~ ' ~~. .'" COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GAFF PRESENT: St~~' ~'', , anners Lindsay • 1. orde~~I~ Fay, ; . to order at 7:05 p.m. Boyer, Crissy Hartl, and Jennifer Reeves, Senior . rs Jen Planning Administrator Molly Hitchcock, Senior Assist ity E Engineers Josh Norton and Carol Cotter, Transportation r Assistant Director Lance Simms, and Staff Assistant Lisa Lin I OTHER CITY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Attor Center Representative Brian Cook. 2. Call meeting to ater Circl"~; College Station, Texas. Mr. Rife spoke in ~ri ~ ~ ms~„10 and 11 that were pulled from the agenda. Mr. Rife e H ~wners Associations, City Staff and the Applicant had ing issues on the Sebesta item. Mr. Rife stated that he felt IOAs are in agreement with the land use issues. However, there traffic issues. Mr. Rife asked the Commission to work with the d them in order to find a solution regarding the traffic problem of reactive. • Chuck Ellison, 2902 Camille Drive, College Station, Texas. Mr. Ellison stated that he represented the applicant regarding Regular Agenda Items 10 and 11. Mr. Ellison stated that the reason the applicant was pulling the item from the agenda was to take an additional 90 days in order to continue to work on the problem with the traffic issues. Mr. Ellison stated that he felt that when the item comes back to the Commission that all the issues, including the traffic issue, will be resolved and that everyone's concerns will have been satisfied, and that all the individuals working together on the project will continue to work towards the best resolution possible for everyone. P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda January 19, 2006 r Prochazka a Fletcher, er Alan Gibbs raduate Civil Ken Fogle, Director Joey Dunn, ~, iG a Robinson and Action ~~) ~,i. ~~ ~~ Page 1 of 5 Marion Stroustup, 1405 Frost, College Station, Texas. Ms. Stroustup spoke in reference • to the drainage problems they have in the area that she lives in. She mentioned that she would like to know who on the City staff she would need to talk with to get some issues resolved. Chairman Shafer directed her to Alan Gibbs, to help her with the matter. Ludy Benjamin, 2001 Indian Trail, College Station, Texas. Mr. Benjamin spoke in opposition of Regular Agenda Item 10 and 11. He stated that he felt disenfranchised regarding the project. Mr. Benjamin also stated that there was a petition that was circulated in the neighborhoods that refused to sup~grt any kind of regional retail in the new plan and the overwhelming majority agreed,:e~~ s°~~ ;.~, Ann Hazen, 1500 Wilshire Court, College Station, Tex '' i'~' ~~ , azen spoke in opposition of the Sebesta Road project. She touched on so ,,qof th is made by previous speakers. Ms. Hazen stated that she was in oppo '' n~ the re retail development and had problems with the traffic issue. She e 'at she woul for the applicant to withdraw his a lication for the ro'ect. , ~i'~~~' Pp p J ~~i~~~ldt. ~~,. ~,;~~ Patricia Startzman, 2009 Oakwood Trail, Col " to '~ ";~~'~exas. Ms. S~tzman turned in a petition to Chairman Shafer regarding the ~ ems with traffic in the area. Ms. Startzman spoke in opposition t ,~ e Sebesta Road ~ t. She stated that she wanted no changes to the existing zoning 2~estrictions can ~ ssured, or until there is new zoning implemented that has prot F i~Te actions and ve traffic mitigation that would be instigated first. `~; ~~ '!~ r ,,~;;~ • Rex Sanders, 240 '"~i~ollege Stati ~~Texas. anders stated that he lived in the Foxfire Subdiv' n. ~'"" ted that wh` Foxfire "was created it was intended to be a rural subdiv'. ,~He stat" '"'hat there are' ' street lights, no curbed streets, no anything. y J anted i ~ ~' way then and would like it to remain that wa s nowt He usf`'" ~ ~ ~ .fire w~~ ion to keep that in mind when making their Deere, 15~I~ ost, C~ ~"' ' Station, Texas. Ms. Deere stated that she was not ed to anythin t was ng on prior to November 2005. She stated that she was 'II ere are othe meo ners that were not made aware of the items as well. Ms. NN a to conc regarding the traffic issue. She also stated that she would like Ana ~i~rmatio egarding the different zonings and what was being proposed. 3. 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 #OS-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 #OS-500219 (CH/JN) P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda January 19, 2006 Page 2 of 5 Dennis Christiansen motioned to approve the Consent Agenda. John Nichols seconded the motion, motion passed (7-0). • Regular Agenda. 4. Possible action and discussion on request(s) for absence from meetings. No absence requests submitted. There were no absence requests submitted for the meeting. 5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on items removed ie Consent Agenda by Commission action. " No items were removed. 6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on ce fro ction 12-K.2 (Block Lengths) of the Subdivision Regulations for I ~ es Phase ' ~ , and presentation possible action, and discussion on a Preli ~ ary Plat for Indian ' Phase VIII, consisting of 36 lots on 69.67 acres, ge locate southeast of th section of Indian Lakes Drive and Chaco Canyon ri the ~m extraterritori Jurisdiction. Case #OS-500231 (JP/CC) Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Pl esented the v '' ~ e and preliminary plat. Staff recommended approval of the p ~ r ~ , ~,, , plat if the .'~ ~'e was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. ,'~4, ,I i; ~V ,.~ • Bill Davis motion, ~+~ prove the v'}~titce as re ' ~~~ted by staff. Dennis Christiansen s e I otion, mo n assed~0 . ~,;~ P ( ) ~~,,,,. ,odlill~ ' y,, ~:. Bill Davis r~-oh to ap ove the preli '''' try plat as submitted. Marsha Sanford seconded the mo ~ d (7-0 . ~I~N~i lll~~~111!~~Ip~ 7 P ~Iil~lll~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ sent possible action, and discussion on a Rezoning for 2075 rth Forest P I co ,oof approximatel 9.95 acres of the Mor an Rector Y g ,~~,,,iilli~~ a generally lb~,: , d on t ~ outh side of North Forest Parkway just east of Highway 6 NNge road, fro -O A~~ 'cultural Open to R-1 Single Family. Case #OS-500234 (JR/ Il~~llllli~~~,. Jennifer R' ~~~~f Planner, presented the rezoning. Ms. Reeves recommended approval oft ~ oning request from A-0, Agricultural Open to R-1, Single-Family Residential. S also stated that several phone calls had been received, and that no one was in opposition, but there were several phone calls regarding drainage and detention ponds. A.D. Patton, 8411 Spring Creek, College Station, Texas. Mr. Patton stated that his concerns were regarding the drainage for the project. Josh Norton, Graduate Civil Engineer, stated that the subject property being addressed • was not in the 100-year floodplain, but that the property to the right of the subject property was in the 100-year floodplain. P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda January 19, 2006 Page 3 of 5 Garry Gore, 8406 Spring Creek, College Station, Texas. Mr. Gore also spoke to concerns regarding the flooding for the subject property. He stated that water does come up to the wooden fences at times for those that live in the creek area. He also stated that even • though the subject property may not be in the 100-year floodplain that it should be considered a high risk area. Mr. Gore stated that residents appreciated the R-1 zoning in the area. John Nichols motioned to approve the rezoning from A-O, Agricultural Open to R- 1, Single-Family Residential. Marsha Sanford seconded the motion, motion passed Dennis Christiansen motioned,, approve the rez as presented. John Nichols seconded the motion, motion p ~7-0). Public hearing, presentation, possi act Amendment by amending the Land ` t~' F • Stevenson Survey ,.. enerally loci and Alexandri ~~''~ en ~ e proposed` from Resid Attach ~ o a combi Residential;'~~ a ,,Dens .Case #OS-5 `" discussi'JC on a Comprehensive Plan ;,: µ ~ ,~,~res of Tract 2.11 of the Robert ~theas, ;'the intersection of Decatur Drive use plan classifications include a change i of Retail Regional and Single-Family ~~ (LB) 'tatt_ P~ er, pre1G e Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Ms. Boyer at erty er had requested that the land use plan be changed from ial Atta ~ o ap ly 20 acres of Retail Regional and 8 acres of Single- :esidentia , dium ~ ~ ' sity. She also stated that no calls regarding the subject had been re , ed. ~~' • 8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discu ~ ~ ~ on a Rezoning for 2407 Rock Prairie Road consisting of one lot on 1.787 ~~~! enerally located at the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and State Highway.. Case 500241 (CH/LB) Crissy Hartl, Staff Planner, presented the rez g. ~~1VIs. Hartl sf hat the rezoning was in compliance with the City's Compr sive Plan and reco ~' d a~~?proval of the rezoning. She stated that no phone ad be ~ received rega ,~lhe subject property. fie. ,~ ~~~:. , Chuck 1~'l~il, 2902 amille Drive, College Station, Texas. Mr. Ellison stated that he P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda January 19, 2006 represente of the subject property. Mr. Ellison stated that he felt that natural buffers were i ant as indicated in the staff report, but that in this case natural buffers would not prq~ ct against the high volume of traffic that will occur at the corner of Arrington and Decatur. Mr. Ellison stated that what they would like to see happen is for the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment be amended to show the 500 feet that backs up to Arrington Road be Retail Regional, that 20.034 acres be zoned Administrative Professional and for the remaining 7.95 acres be zoned Single-Family Residential. He stated that the proposed plan removes the residential area from a very high-traffic area and that that would provide the best use for the subject property. Page 4 of 5 Wallace Phillips, 4490 Castlegate, College Station, Texas. Mr. Phillips stated that he • agreed with the points made by Mr. Ellison. He also stated that homeowners consider traffic noise when purchasing a home, and that he felt that it was not a good idea to put houses up against roads any more than you have to. Mr. Phillips suggested that Commercial, C-1, A-P, is a great transition. Ken Reynolds motioned to table the Comprehensive Plan Amendment until the February 2, 2006, meeting to allow staff time to respond to the applicant's suggestion of the subject property. John Nichols secon d the motion, motion passed (7-0). ~`~, ~'~+,~, 10. ITEM PULLED FROM AGENDA: Public hearing, ~ ion, possible action, and discussion on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment re ,~ est fo ~ area generally located east of and adjacent to State Highway 6, nort ~ 'woodcree , bdivision, south of Emerald Parkway, and west of Foxfire Sub ~ sior~N;A~ from Regi ' . etail, Industrial R&D, and Single Family-Medium Den ~ to Regional Retail, ~ ust 'al R&D, Institutional, Office, and Planned Develop ~ ' „p~4Case # +! -,500044 (JP). ,;.: 11. ITEM PULLED FROM AGENDA: Public hey ~ ~ 'presentation, possible action, and discussion of a rezoning for 18~.. + ,acres generally 1 to the east of and adjacent to State Highway 6, north of Wood ~;, ~ ; dive, west of ~ reek &Foxfire subdivisions, and south of Technology Drive, ,, ~; ~ ; , gricultura ~~, , ~~ and R-1 Single Family Residential to A-P Administrative P ;;~essio ' ~ OSe #OS-, ,,, 073 (JP) 12. Adjourn. ,;'+'~+~~i~~~ ~!~~~IN`~ ,,: ~~,,. ~I~~I+vIJ.~~t, ~ I i ~~ i' ~ John Nicho~,~~~~°'~' 'oned t "'` journ. De~i;~ is Christiansen seconded the motion, motion assed ~ '~~~~ ~~° i Zoning mmission Attest: Lisa Lindgren, Staff Assistant Planning and Development Services • P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda January 19, 2006 Page 5 of 5 • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Planner Report Date: January 23, 2006 Email: jprochazkat'a~cstx.gov Meeting Date: February 2, 2006 Item: Presentation, possible action and discussion on a Preliminary Plat for Indian Lakes Phase IX, consisting of 44 lots on 14.78 acres, generally located southeast of the intersection of Indian Lakes Drive and Arapaho Ridge Drive. Applicant: Travis Martinek, agent for Smiling Mallard Development, Ltd., property owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat as submitted. Item Summary: This item is for consideration of a preliminary plat for a new section of the Indian Lakes development that will provide smaller single-family lots in a gated community. A preliminary plat showing a similar layout and a private wastewater treatment plant was approved for this property in August 2005. Anew preliminary plat is being considered because the applicant is proposing to connect to the City sanitary sewer system. Because of the removal • of the on-site private wastewater treatment plant, two additional lots are included with this plat. Several variance requests were approved in August 2005 to allow such a development to occur. The following table summarizes the variances granted for this property in August 2005: Subcjivisioh ~ Requirem~n~~ ~ 4 ~~' r~ ~ _ V~rianc~~; ~ ~ ~A ~ cry i g ~_~ Re u~ations ~'.~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ -. ~ ~= ~ ~~~`~ F•~~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ,~ s 1i ~, Grafted ~ SeCtiOrl - Z = 4 ~~ ~C~, w's\,~'v,~l;.'Y ~ } _ 13-B Streets ROW width of 70 feet ROW width of 28 feet 10-foot shoulders no shoulders 13-C Lot Width 100 feet 34.05 feet to 98.48 feet 12-J.2.1 Utility Layout 20-ft. utility easement at front or 10 feet at front of lot and 10 feet rear of lot or 10 feet at rear when at (unabutting) rear of lot lots abut each other It is also necessary for the applicant to request variances from the County Subdivision Regulations and receive plat approval from the County Commissioner's Court. The County Commissioner's Court will be considering variances to the front and side lot utility easement widths, setbacks, and maximum dwelling units per acre and lot size. Minimum lot sizes are • recommended in the County for the construction of septic systems. Since the • developer has proposed to tie into the City's sanitary sewer system, individual lots will not need septic systems. 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. Item Background: This area was formerly part of Indian Lakes Phase 4 (vacated June 22, 2005). The City and the developer agree that the increase in density from the rest of the Indian Lakes development warrants this proposal to be a new project. A Preliminary Plat for this property, proposing 42 lots and an on-site sewer treatment plant, was approved in August. 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. Infrastructure and Facilities 5. Copy of Preliminary Plat ~i ~~ COLLEGE STATION FOR OFFIC~~ ~Y P&Z CASE NO.: /h~ DATE SUBMITTED: V 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. X 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 submitted 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 IX PECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION: Southeast of intersection between Indian Lakes Drive and Arapaho Ridge Drive, formerly Phase 1, Block 9, Lots 1, 2A, 2B, 3, & 4. APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name: Travis Martinek Street Address: 3608 East 29`h Street, Suite 100 State: Texas Zip Code: 77802 Phone Number: (979) 846-4384 City: Bryan E-Mail Address: travis@c/arkewyndham.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 29t`' Street, Suite 100 City: Bryan State: Texas Zip Code: 77802 Phone Number: (979) 846-4384 E-Mail Address: travis@clarkewyndham.com Fax Number: (979) 846-1461 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 City: College Station E-Mail Address: mikem@mcclurebrowne.com Fax Number: (979) 693-2554 6/l3l03 lofl Total Acres Of Subdivision: 14.78 Total # Of Lots: 44 R-O-W Acreage: 1.64 (Private Drive ROVI~ umber Of Lots By Zoning District: N/A 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: SEE ATTACHMENT A Requested oversize participation: The Developer will be requesting oversize participation for an offsite sanitary sewer line extension. Plans for this are currently under negotiation with College Station Utilities and Development Services. An official submittal will follow. 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. %~~~ Travis Martinek Design & Construction Manager I~~S o,~ Date • 6/(3/03 2 of 2 • INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Water required for plat: This phase is not considered to be vested and therefore must meet all fire flow requirements in accordance with the Bryan/College Station Design Guidelines and Specifications. The domestic water is proposed to be served off the same line as fire flow and is to be served by Wellborn SUD. Water Service: Required to provide domestic service to each platted lot. Sewer required for plat: The developer proposes tying into the City sanitary sewer system. This requires that this property be brought into the City's sewer CCN and easements be obtained prior to the Final Plat. Sewer Service: Required to provide domestic service to each platted lot. This plat proposes to tie into the City sanitary sewer system. Street(s) required for plat: The streets are proposed to be privately maintained by the HOA, 24-feet in width, inverted crown for centerline drainage with no curb and gutters. Streets/Access: The public street access is to Indian Lakes Drive. Off-site Easements required for plat: N/A • Drainage: Designed to Brazos County Standards. Flood Plain: N/A Oversize request: N/A Impact Fees: N/A Parkland Dedication Fees: N/A C7 Regular Agenda 7 Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Conditional Use Permit for WPC Condos to establish amulti-family use with residential uses on the first floor in the Wolf Pen Creek Design District consisting of 7.61 acres located at 305 Holleman Dr E, generally located on the north side of Holleman between George Bush Drive East and Dartmouth Drive. Case #06-500001 (TF/CC) i • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Trey Fletcher Report Date: 1.23.2006 Email: tletcher@cstx.gov Meeting Date: 2.2.2006 Project Number: 06-00500001 Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Conditional Use Permit for the WPC Condos to establish amulti-family use with residential uses on the first floor in the Wolf Pen Creek Design District consisting of 7.61 acres located at 305 Holleman Dr E, generally located on the north side of Holleman between George Bush Drive East and Dartmouth Drive. Applicant: Jim Stewart Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the request as presented Item Summary: The purpose of the request for a Conditional Use Permit is to establish amulti-family development (90 dwelling units) with residential uses on the first floor rather than retail uses. Projects that are developed with retail on the first floor are permitted by right in the Wolf Pen Creek (WPC) District. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan shows this area as • Wolf Pen Creek, and it is also zoned as the Wolf Pen Creek District. The City Council adopted the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor Study in 1988. An update, consisting primarily of a revised Master Plan map, was adopted in July, 1998. Specific uses for this parcel were not contemplated in either document. The purpose of the WPC District is "to promote development that is appropriate along Wolf Pen Creek, which, upon creation was a predominantly open and undeveloped area challenged by drainage, erosion, and flooding issues. Development proposals are designed to encourage the public and private use of Wolf Pen Creek and the development corridor as an active and passive recreational area while maintaining an appearance consistent with the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan." As referenced in the summary above, multi-family development in the WPC District requires a Conditional Use Permit unless the multi-family development has retail uses on the first floor. In this case, they are permitted by right. The purpose of this requirement is to force consideration of this design concept in this district. In addition to the improvements made by the City of College Station such as the amphitheater, trail network, parks and open space, new /expanded retail venues serve to anchor the east and west ends of the district with Regional Retail types of uses. Recently, Arctic Wolf Ice Rink opened providing a unique recreational opportunity for the entire Brazos Valley. All of these serve to attract trips to the WPC District along the Holleman and Dartmouth corridors. Another • emphasis of the district is restaurants, hospitality and entertainment. While many of these opportunities exist along Harvey, and Holleman near SH 6, only a few Created on 1/25/2006 9:14:00 AM P:IGROUPIDevelopment ServiceslPlanning & Zoning CommissionlLegal Review 20061February 2, 20061wpc ~ condos cup.DOC large tracts remain as greenfields, having never been developed. The parcel is • within one-mile of the TAMU main campus. The Thoroughfare Plan shows Holleman Drive as a Minor Arterial, and requires 100' of public right-of-way. The concept plan indicates that a 15-foot right-of-way dedication is proposed. This dedication would occur in conjunction with the plat. The project site is located between George Bush Drive East and Dartmouth Drive. Both of these thoroughfares are also Minor Arterials on the Thoroughfare Plan. The parcel is also within a tax increment finance district (TIF #1 ). Item Background: The parcel was annexed into the City of College Station in 1958. It is zoned WPC, Wolf Pen Creek and is not platted. Across the street, offices and the Arctic Wolf Ice Rink have been constructed. At the northeast corner of Holleman and Dartmouth, the City of College Station is completing facilities identified in the Master Plan to promote the district, enhance access to trails, and provide additional parking for the amphitheater. Staff Analysis: Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses. The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards when, after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that: • (Staff comments are in italics) "The proposed use shall meet the purpose and intent of this UDO and the use shall meet the all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of use." The current parking arrangement is not satisfactory. The proposed site plan shows that garage spaces and the spaces in the front of the garages area being counted to satisfy the minimum parking requirement. Areas have been designated on the site plan as areas that are appropriate to establish required parking. To alleviate this condition, at least 90 parking spaces should be created, and distributed throughout the site. The applicant intends to seek a waiver to parking space requirements as provided in Section 7.2.H.9 if the development meets the goals of the master plan for WPC. 2. "The proposed use shall be consistent with the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for Development of the City." Through the WPC Master Plan Update and the UDO, the land uses in this district should consist of mixed uses versus single use parcels. One of the intents for the significant municipal investment has been to create focal points for the district and attract residents and visitors, and as a result, a "captive market" for retail sales and service establishments to thrive off Texas Avenue. • Created on 1/25/2006 9:14:00 AM 2 P:IGROUPIDevelopment ServiceslPlanning & Zoning CommissionlLegal Review 20061February 2, 20061wpc condos cup.DOC 3. "The proposed use shall not be detrimental to the health, welfare, or safety of • the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property." The public hearing is an opportunity for the Commission to measure the potential impact on surrounding land uses. 4. The proposed site plan and circulation plan shall be harmonious with the character of the surrounding area." Specific requirements are enumerated in Section 5.6 of the UDO to address the relationship of buildings to the site as well as the relationship of buildings and the site to adjoining areas. 5. The proposed use shall not negatively impact existing uses in the area or in the City through impacts on public infrastructure such as roads, parking facilities, electrical, or water and sewer systems, or on public services such as police and fire protection, solid waste collection, or the ability of existing infrastructure and services to adequately provide services. Refer to the Infrastructure and Facilities section attached. 6. The proposed use shall not negatively impact existing uses in the area or in the City. 7. That the proposed use meets the purposed and intent of the ordinance and is • in harmony with the development policies. The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit and intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements may include, but are not limited to, increased open space, loading and parking requirements, additional landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening." Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Wolf Pen Creek District is a referred to as a Design District in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Typically, the Design Review Board (DRB) has the final word on site plans in this district. Under Section 3.1 of the UDO, the Administrator has accepted the Concept Plan to complete the application submittal for this application. Conditional Use Permits generally require a site plan to be processed in conjunction with the request. If it is the desire of the Planning & Zoning Commission and/or the City Council to review a detailed site plan, either body may request to do so within the motion. As a residential development, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board must make a recommendation regarding Parkland Dedication requirements prior the approval of the Preliminary Plat by the Planning & Zoning Commission. • Created on 1/25/2006 9:14:00 AM 3 P:IGROUPIDevelopment ServiceslPlanning & Zoning CommissionlLegal Review 20061February 2, 20061wpc condos cup.DOC • Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the Conditional Use Permit and associated site plan. The options regarding the use permit are: 1. Approval as submitted; 2. Approval with conditions relating to specific site characteristics or with time limitations; 3. Denial with specified reasons for denial; 4. Table; or, 5. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. Copy of Site Plan C7 • Created on 1/25/2006 9:14:00 AM 4 P:IGROUPIDevelopment ServiceslPlanning & Zoning Commissionllegal Review 20061February 2, 20061wpc condos cup.DOC ii ~ J ti ~ ~ J m ~~ RjL ~ ' ~§ ' n ~ ,~~QNg e R N j 1 P,~NP d A ~ M tND ~ __ '°y u~ ~ ~ °~ a 3 ~ ~ ~nfl~ ~ OP` ~ `° ° O C~ Y ~ U - as g~i ~ U • ~ ~ ~ NZ ~ ~' m rn ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~`~b ~ ~ m eJ ~ J "u ~ ~` ,O ~r ~ 0,4 ~ t~R M N A ~ ~^ o O r ~ M O r~ f0 ~~ ~~ M Lr' ~U ~ ~~ N O ~S ~,^ W ~o Gj~ IN O _ ~ 'ate ~ m ~ ~ ~` rg~ O ~ 00 b 0 IL OJ . ~q , ^ c~ `L ~ a O1 to r~~ ~ OQQ~ o C(Lp~OP ~ _" n ~~ ~ ~~ O ~' ~ R. 1 `l~ ~ 6P .(s ^, , ~ ~ o a or ~,~ ~ ~ s ~ ° 8 ~ ~ ~ O~~ /~ ~~ 0 (1 f1~ a A°jv O `#' m v~ iC ~ ('7 zt °4 N d 8 , ~-a ~ b a ~ ~ ~ b~ m ~ a a ~ ~ r4 '~'' a ~ ~ ~~ m a °r r a p ` o v M ~, 4 , `" p a ~ O N ~ r a ~` Z M N r Q ,8° ~°'' Q' c0 r c0 m r c7 M `@ ~ W N G.E- ~~~ ~~ ~ n ~ r z~ ~ a o J 7 ~ J~ a ~ ~ _ o ~ 2i ~ O ~ ~~ y\ ~~ ~ ~ M y Q ~ V ~~ ~ JO 4 v OO ~ p a nnn U nnI""I / ~ ¢r r ~ ~O O' 4a 3' ~ n rn s ar ~ o ~ ° (mil L~ m ~ .~ r , ~ ~ ~ .r ~j ~ ) ~ r rn M ~ ~ o0 Y ~ _ N ' I a F- ~ ~o~ VU ~ y ~ b ~ w b~G W Q ~ 1 ~ o V ~L Q ~ ~ /~~,, ~~. ~ m Z ~ ~ ,e~' ~ca° Q ~ ~ ~ ~7 QQ N g o J `\1~~i0 ~ ~ r ' W LL ~ a ~ m Q ~ p N a ~ o J ~s J o ~ M d ~ W ~ ~, , ~ L/V ~iVJ- v ~~ ~ `g 0~~ O ~ /~~ J~iJ V 7~by m O ~ ~9 ~ Z N ~ ~ ~ ~ A/ ~j a Q g ~ ~ N~ ,, ~,.~`~ OQ` 5~ z ~ 00 ~ ` J ~ er ~n ,+~ 0 ~ ' ,d ~~ 305 ~ITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d Development Servicer ~ ~. ~~'" FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO. ~C~ ~ D _ ~-' DATE SUBMITTED ~ ~~ ~~~~- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION GENERAL Minimum Requirements X $300.00 application, processing, and notification fee _ $200.00 site plan review fee (includes 3 staff reviews). _ $200.00 Development Permit Application Fee if applicable. _ $600.00 Public Infrastructure Inspection Fee if applicable. (This fee is payable if construction of a public waterline, sewerline, sidewalk, street or drainage facilities is involved.) X Ten (10) copies of site plan which includes requirements for site plan proposals as listed on attached sheet. This site plan will be reviewed by Staff, after which ten (10) copies of revised site plan may be required. X Detailed explanation of proposed use including hours of operation, anticipated traffic, total building capacity, number of employees, number of students, children, ages of children, etc., as applicable. Date of Required Preapplication Conference: October 10, 2005 Conditional Uses: (check one) ^ Day Care, Commercial in R-4, R-6, R-7 X Drive-inlthru window in WPC ^ Educational Facility, Outdoor ^ Instruction in A-OR ^ NAME OF PROJECT: WPC Condos ^ LOCATION: North side of Holleman Drive adjacent on the east to The Arbors ^ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A004601, Morgan Rector League, Tract 20. (Property is un-platted at this time) ^ PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Multi-family residential with first floor retail is permitted by right in WPC. This request is to substitute residential uses on the first floor rather than retail. Retail is not viable due to the location of the property in relation to major traffic arteries and surrounding available properties that have better visibility and higher traffic counts. Multi-family is a viable use and is an opportunity to gain revenue into the Tax Increment Finance district prior to its expiration in 2009. This particular project is a product requested by potential buyers during construction of the Waterwood Townhomes on Krenek Tap. The owner, Mr. Stewart, had many requests for a different floor plan that would be less conducive to a student population and more attractive to working individuals or couples. APPLICANT/ POTENTIAL BUYER /PROJECT DEVELOPER INFORMATION: Name: Jim Stewart Multi-Family in WPC with residential on first floor Parking as a Primary Use in A-P, NG-2 Theater in NG-3 E-Mail Address: ibstewart6(c~comcast.net Street Address: (P.O. Box 10028), 1001 Krenek TaD Road #1401, College Station Texas 77840 Phone Number: 739-9944 Fax Number: 979-694-3774 • „„~~ ~ ..s o PRIMARY CONTACT INFL~.~iiAAT10N: Name: Jane Kee. IPS Group. Planning Consultant E-mail Address: jane _ipsgroup.us Street Address: 511 University Drive Ste. 211, College Station, Texas 77840 hone Number: 979-846-9259 Fax Number: 979-846-9259 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name: Bart Munroe E-Mail Address: Street Address: 7553 River Ridge Drive. College Station, Texas, 77845-2374 Phone Number: 690-1229 Fax Number ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Name: Veronica Morgan, Mitchell ~ Morgan Engineers E-Mail Address: v(c~mitchellandmorgan.com Street Address: 511 University Drive Ste. 204, College Station Texas 77840 Phone Number: 979-260-6963 Fax Number :260-3564 ^ PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY :Vacant ^ PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: Multi-family development with residential uses on the first floor and dedication of WPC minimum reservation area. ^ CURRENT ZONING OF PROPERTY :WPC ^ VARIANCE(S) REQUESTED AND REASON(S) None ^ PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 270 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED: 360 ~ RESIDENTIAL ~ COAAMERCtA~I.. -NA ~ Total Acreage: 1297 Housing Units: 90 Floodplain Acreage:. 5..36 sexes v~iN be dedicated / .94 acres filled Total = $40,680 APPLICATION WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE WITHOUT THE FOLLOWING: State how the following issues will be addressed: 1. Parking: Once the first floor use is determined a detailed site plan will be submitted for the Design Review Board. Parking will exceed ordinance requirements as each unit will also have one guest parking space. 2. Screening of offensive areas (trash, loading areas, transformers, utility connections, detention ponds, etc.). Any offensive areas will be screened from both the street right-of-way and the creek corridor as required and as approved by the Design Review Board. 3. Traffic impacts: The street system in the area is capable of handling the anticipated traffic. If possible access will be combined with the adjacent multi-family development, The Arbors. 4. Protection of neighborhoods. Property to the west is currently developed as amulti-family complex. Surrounding properties are commercial and vacant. There are no residential areas that will be negatively impacted by this d Xelopment. I verify that all of~Tijes yr~'6r~ination contairytrd in this application is true and correct. PARKLAND DEDICA' 90 DUX $452 of Owner, Agent or App~cant Date R /~ 7 ~'] 7 ..F 7 INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES • Water: There is an existing 8 water line at the southern corner of the property. A water design report will be required to show there is adequate fire flows for the proposed project. Sewer: There is an existing 15" sewer line that bisects the property. This project is proposing to relocate this line and abandon the associated PUE. Streets: Holleman Drive is classified a Minor Arterial on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. An additional 15-foot dedication will be required when platting and is indicated on the site plan. Off-site Easements: At this time it does not appear that any off-site easements will be required. Drainage: Drainage is to Wolf Pen Creek. Flood Plain: A portion of this property is located within FEMA floodplain and floodway. This project includes the reclamation of some of the floodplain. • Oversize request: None requested at this time. Impact Fees: Not applicable. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 1-19-2006 and 2-9-2006 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 2-2-2006 Advertised Hearing Dates: 2-23-2006 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners within 200': 13 Response Received: None as of date of staff report. • Created on 1/25/2006 9:14:00 AM 5 P:IGROUPIDevelopment ServiceslPlanning & Zoning CommissionlLegal Review 20061February 2, 20061wpc condos cup.DOC MEMORANDUM Report Date: January 18, 2006 Meeting Date: February 2, 2006 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: LINDSAY BOYER, PROJECT MANAGER Email: Iboyer@cstx.gov SUBJECT: Text amendments to the UDO, 7.2.H, Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required Item: Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a text amendment to Article 7.2. H of the Unified Development Ordinance, Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required for freestanding furniture sales and motor vehicle service areas (LB 06-00500006) Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends adding to the off-street parking table a ratio for freestanding furniture sales at one (1) space per 350 square feet, • and amending the ratio for motor vehicle service areas from one (1) space per 100 square feet to one (1) space per 200 square feet. Item Summary: This item is being forwarded as a result of the discussion for the UDO Annual Review. As a result of the discussion for the UDO Annual Review, parking ratios for furniture sales and motor vehicle service areas were brought forward from the public during the public hearing. Based on surveys of other Texas communities, staff is recommending a change to these parking ratios. Motor vehicle service area: The ratio for motor vehicle sales was set by the Planning and Zoning Commission in 1984 in response to the development of the Allen Honda dealership at 1 space per 100 square feet of service area. Based on a survey of 23 cities (see Attachment 1), staff found that College Station's ratio for this use was the most stringent. This amendment would not affect the amount of additional parking that is required for motor vehicle sales areas. Furniture sales: There currently is no separate item in the parking table for furniture sales. It is currently considered retail sales and parking is calculated based on the zoning district the use is located. For C-1 retail, parking is 1 space per 250 square feet. Retail in C-2 requires 1 space per • 350 square feet. Staff conducted a survey of 22 cities for furniture sales parking and found • a large range of parking ratios. The average parking ratio was 1 space per 350 square feet. Based on the large displays of furniture sales, staff is recommending a decrease in the number of required parking spaces for freestanding furniture sales. This would not affect furniture sales that are located in shopping centers. It is also important to note that should a freestanding furniture retailer be converted to any other retail, additional parking would be required. Budgetary & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: 1. Parking Survey for Furniture Sales 2. Parking Survey for Motor Vehicle Service Area C~ • • Parking Survey City Furniture Arlington 1 per 400 sf Austin 1 per 500 sf Baytown 2 + 1 per 300 sf over 1000 sf Bryan 1 per 200 sf Carrollton 1 per 500 sf Cedar Park 1 per 300 sf Flower Mound 1 per 250 sf Frisco 1 per 200 sf Georgetown 1 per 250 up to 20k, 1 per 500 after Cranbury 2 + 1 per 300 sf over 1000 sf Grapevine 1 per 200 sf Killeen 1 per 800 sf Lewisville 2 + 1 per 300 sf over 1000 sf Longview 1 per 200 sf Lubbock 1 per 300 sf McKinney 1 per 400 sf Richardson 1 per 500 sf Southlake 1 per 400 sf Sugar Land 1 per 300 sf Tyler 1 per 500 sf Victoria 1 per 500 sf Waco 1 per 400 sf • • • Parking Survey City Automobile RepaiNBody Shop Arlington 1 per 500 GSA Baytown not specified Carrollton 1 per 500 GSA Cedar Park 1 per 300 GSA Flower Mound 1 per 250 GSA Frisco 3 per bay+emplyee parking Galveston 1 per 1000 GSA Georgetown 5 per bay Cranbury 1 per 200 GSA Grapevine 1 per 125 GSA Killeen 1 per 500 GSA Lewisville 1 per 200 GSA Longview 1 per 200 GSA Lubbock not specified McAllen not specified McKinney 2 per bay+tow Odessa not specified Richardson 5+2 per bay Southlake not specified Sugar Land not specified Tyler 3 per bay+tow Victoria 4 per bay Waco 1 per 200 GSA • • MEMORANDUM Report Date: January 23, 2006 Meeting Date: February 2, 2006 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Molly Hitchcock, Planning Administrator Email: mhitchcock@cstx.gov SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT for the City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance 2005 Annual Review Item: Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on an Ordinance Amendment of the Unified Development Ordinance consisting of items considered to be ministerial in nature based on the Unified Development Ordinance Annual Review. (05-00500023) • Item Summary: At the direction of the Planning & Zoning Commission at the January 5, 2006 meeting, the Annual Review of the UDO has been divided into several smaller amendments for consideration. The first of these is to correct items considered to be housekeeping in nature and not policy-related. A list of these proposed changes and the revised ordinance articles are attached. Any items the P&Z may believe to be policy-related may be discussed and acted upon or removed from this amendment and placed on a future meeting agenda for individual consideration. Attachments: 1. 2005 UDO Annual Review: Housekeeping Items 2. Draft UDO Article 2 (redlined) 3. Draft UDO Article 3 (redlined) 4. Draft UDO Article 4 (redlined) 5. Draft UDO Article 5 (redlined) 6. Draft UDO Article 6 (redlined) 7. Draft UDO Article 7 (redlined) 8. Draft UDO Article 11 (redlined) • Regular Agenda 10 Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance from Section 8-J.2 (Block Lengths) of the Subdivision Regulations for The Woodlands of College Station, and presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat and Replat for the The Woodlands of College Station consisting of four (4) lots on 90.69 acres generally located along the east side of Wellborn Road between Southwest Parkway and Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818). Case #05-500242 (TF/AG) • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Trey Fletcher, Sr. Planner Report Date: 1.23.2006 Email: tfletcher@cstx.gov Meeting Date: 2.2.2006 Project Number: 05-00500242 Item: Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a variance from Section 8-J.2 (Block Lengths) of the Subdivision Regulations for The Woodlands of College Station, and Public Hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat and Replat for the The Woodlands of College Station consisting of four (4) lots on 90.69 acres generally located along the east side of Wellborn Road between Southwest Parkway and Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818). Applicant: Greg Taggart, applicant for Woodlands of Athens Cottage Rental, LLC /Woodlands of College Station, LP, property owner. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval with Staff Comments No. 3 of the Final Plat if the variance request is granted by the Commission. Item Summary: • The developer is proposing to develop Lot 1 as astudent-oriented multi-family residential development, and Lots 2-4 as general commercial uses. Tracts 1 and 2 are proposed for parkland dedication along Bee Creek Tributary B and adjacent to Southwest Park. In support of this Final Plat and Replat, the applicant is requesting a variance to block length due to TxDOT access constraints. Section 8-J.2 of the Subdivision Regulations states that the block length shall not exceed 800 feet in non single-family residential areas. 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 along FM 2818 and FM 2154 is 3,989 feet in length, requiring a variance of 3,189 feet. 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 Final Plat is consistent with the Preliminary Plat that was approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission on November 17, 2005. Through this plat an additional five feet of right-of-way will be dedicated along Southwest Parkway which is a Minor Arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan. Christine Lane was abandoned by City Council on December 15, 2005. • Item Background: These parcels were annexed in 1969. The C-1 General Commercial portion was established in 1975. The R-4 portion was established in 1977. A portion of the preliminary plat area is already platted as the K.W. Schick Subdivision, and is being replatted, and incorporated into this Final Plat. With regard to development activity in the vicinity of this parcel, the Southwest Crossing at Bee Creek shopping center has been recently completed at the northeast corner of Southwest Parkway and Wellborn Road. TxDOT is planning to construct a railroad grade separation at FM 2818, immediately south of this site. Related Advisory Board Recommendations: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended accepting the proposed 3.78 acre park land dedication with a $170,740.00 fee at the October 11, 2005 meeting. 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 Final Plat: The Commission has final authority over the Final Plat. The options regarding the Final Plat are: ^ Approval ^ Denial Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Map 3. Application 4. Copy of Preliminary Plat 5. Variance Request Letter • a ~ ~ rv N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~'v~ ~ + l' ~ ~ - ea``d~ V ~~ ~ 1~ ^ °~ Q ~-- b . ~ bj ! .n ~ ti ~ ~ ~ b ~ D e e p b ~ry z g i nS , v W ~y`~ m ~+~' r ,d ~^~ r ~- ~ f ~~ I r ~ ~ V ~ d(j ~ ~'~ b ~Y ~ o w hw` ~ n~ ~ _ LL. rv ~ ' c ~Y ` ~ J O O ~ ` y ry b ~ b t~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ,~ ,~ ~ ~_~~ ~ ~ F Q ~ ~~ e~ b ^ b r. ~ s W ~ ~ ~ j ay ~~~ Q~~ ~3 ~ d ~ . d„ ,w b ~ a R f ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ m j W r ~ ~ ~ M ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ P `• P ~' P L f ~ II J ~ ~ ~'~' ~~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ Q ~_ J ~ " j s d~ QQ~ o ~, Q ~1! [ ~ ~, ,~ ~ ~ ~ N 1 ue, _ ~ j m }, 3iti m Q ~ p , O ~ ~{ ~ ~ ~ O ~ N n t~~ r ^j?~j ' jo' f ' ~ o N ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ i ~O ~ f / ~ ~ ° ~ n~ ~ ' j o°rc { Y' ~ ~ v F ~~yy ~ '' `''a "'j! j ! , 'hN e n ,~ ~ ~ O te A by ! ~ ~ ° ~ ~' ~ H A '~ m _ rv P~ R ~~ /~t~' Q L r ~~~- s ~ F ~ W ~~ U , F ` , ~ J ~ o 9 .- r ai ' ~ V , ~ , P~ ~ n O U ~, r ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ m~ a Q ~ t ft o o z a ~ "t ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~~ O ~ ~ a ~ a rc ~s 3 f N ~ , w ` ~ ~ s ~ ~ 1 s o ~ m ° ~ " ~ ~ ~~~ a a a ~ W ' m d r ~ V C~ M1~~ ~ ~~ ~ W s "" ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ e' c ~ ~ a, 4 n d ~ 53 V z P+w ~ n ~ ~ aN o • ~ 7/ ~y~' Q ° , Sb ~ ~ Ci~~ J ~~P LL. O O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ,,. /\,J Y ~ n ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ R g ~ ~ i Q o ~ ~ ~ N ~ 8 a ®aa w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~y ~! 9 r , t • ,- CITY of Cota.>uG~ S~r~~l~ioaa Planning ~' Z7ruelnpmtnt Srrvrccl FOR OFFICE USE OrN(LY P&Z CASE NO.: ~ 5 ~ ~ `i ~` DATE SUBMITTED: ~ QJ p~ i ~J ~"''`~ FINAL PLAT APP (CATION (Check one) ^ Minor ^ Amending Final ^ Vacating ^ Replat iasoo.oo) tasoo.oo) aoo.oo) (s~oo.oo> (ssoo.oo)* ~S~i~ ~ 'Includes public hearing fee Is this plat in the ETJ? ^ Yes [~~ The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P8Z Commission consideration. MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: ~ -~Sc.~4 ~ Filing Fee (see above) NOTE: Multiple Sheets - $55.00 per additional sheet ~ c-~t ~ ,~~~ Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations ~ $100 (if applicable) ~"`~ ~ Development Permit Application Fee of $200.00 (if applicable). -_~.._._.~. ~~, SH6,~,,,~/f/e,~cJ/~oNs Infrastructure Inspection Fee of $600.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed) ~ Application completed in full. 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 re not, o (2) copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat (if applicable). pi'ti/, SK~.Mi'~g Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provide proof of • approval (if applicable). .G { p a~40f iv~t '~ f Date of Preapplication Conference: NAME OF SUBDIVISION ~ ~© ~~ ~2 ~ O 'e- ~- /'d`am SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (Lot & Block) u ~ eo -^NC.r o'~ ~~ Z a~31 ~ ~ Wellborn uhf. APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): _ , %t~ ~i; ~S Name Gt~mbe~/4/1c'1s /tin `R/'l ~°Y'~' ~a r' Ow nc-r /G req /~.94arT f~Ie~~~q -~ Street Address ~0 /~ ~[-. °' Zs~~~ /exams /#'Y@.S City ~~ State Zip Code _~~ ~~(,~ E-Mail Address G ~ ~~ R Phone Number `~7~=~4 --_359 Fax Number PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified. Ple se attach an additional sheet for multiple owners): ~ / ~~ Name Glaa~~cT.n~ e'F ~~ieds ~d~~e ~'eH Ta ~, LLG ~v ~r s © C'©~i~9e ~'fa~%~, G•f' Street Address ~o Uol/CT4i% l Flo' rf/J'ctrc State ~ Zip Code ~© I~ ~.~ Phone Number ~ `~ '" .3 ~ ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S Name `~Te j City ~~'f C~(s'' E-Mail Address Fax Number i1 !~~ -- 357- ~ ~ O 1 Street Address Z.~.~l ,~'~SX6ts~'t~ / vL S j ~ Ciry c ~ • State Zip Code "7 ? ~Z~ E-Mail Address C C R_' ~ ~• Phone Number ~ .- ~3..5^.~,~9 Fax Number - ~--' .~ 6/13/03 1 of 5 • Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? Yes No V Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume and Page # Acreage ~ Total Property . ~ Total # of Lots R-O-W Acreage V Existing Use: V'o~.P.bfJy' Proposed Use: ~~Vtk.a. Number of Lots By Zoning District ~ / C~1 _j_ / ('~ `'~ / Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: Floodplain Acreage 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: O~..e Requested Oversize Participation: K.1 ~-e Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: ~~ Streets ~ ~ Sidewalks '~Q~ ( Sanitary Sewer Lines ~~~ Water Lines til~ Channels 1J(~ Storm Sewers m~ ~ Bike Lanes /Paths Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat: ACREAGE: # of acres to be dedicated + $ development fee # of acres in floodplain S.~e ~a~ ~c ~ (~.e.~. # of acres in detention ~ # of acres in greenways ~ ~qa~~~d OR I~.G.c-~J~ ~T ~ ~ ~O S~ FEE IN LIEU OF LAND: # of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 = $ (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-identified final plat and attests that this request does not amend any covenants or restrictions associated with this plat. `. Signatu nd T" e • n~a/ ~~~ ~~~= 6113/03 ~~I z ~ ~ Date 2of5 • • -_~aa ~ ~~ ~~ ~° ~ 2551 Texas Ave. South, Ste. A, College Station, TX 77840 ~ ~ ~ , .., `~Q~w~~ Ofc: 979.693.5359 Fax: 979.693.4243 Email: mdgcstx@netlane.com Web: www.mdgcs.com ~`~y~c+~40,Jf O 19 January 2006 Trey Fletcher A.I.C.P. Planning and Development Services City of College Station 1101 Texas Ave S. College Station, TX 77840 RE: Block Length Variance Request 'The `~Voudlands of College Station Addendum to Final Plat Submission. Mr. Fletcher: As we have discussed today, at the direction of our client, Woodlands of College Station, L.P., we hereby request a variance to the block length requirements called for in the Subdivision Regulations, Section 8-J. As we discussed, we cannot insert any intervening streets in Lot One or Lot Two, as such will not be permitted by TxDOT. In addition as we depicted on the approved Preliminary Plat, these Lots are large and will have internal circulation provided by private streets. We ask that this variance request be processed with the Final Plat. Please call if you have questions. Sincerely, MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP ~/ ~- /~. / .~ Gr ory K. ggart R.P.L.S. anaging P incipal • • ~~ CITX'OF COLLEGE STATION .Planning er Developmrnt Saviat 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone (979) 764-3570 /Fax (979) 764-3496 MEMORANDUM January 27, 2006 TO: Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, via fax: 979.693.4243 FROM: Alan Gibbs, Sr. Asst. City Engineer • SUBJECT: THE WOODLANDS OF CS (FP) -Final Plat Staff reviewed the above-mentioned final plat as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. $100 processing fee for the next round of three (3) staff reviews; Two (2) 24"x36" copies of the revised final plat; Twelve (12) 11"x17" copies of the revised final plat; One (1) Mylar original with the appropriate signatures. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Case file #05-00500242 • STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 3 • Project: THE WOODLANDS OF CS (FP) - 05-00500242 ENGINEERING 1. Provide a temporary blanket easement to cover all proposed public infrastructure until the specific easements are dedicated. 2. Remove the "to be abandoned" language from the existing 20' sanitary sewer easement. 3. Either remove the proposed sanitary easement or remove the language "by separate instrument". 4. The plat does not appear to close. Please contact Sven Griffin at (979)764-3570. 5. Resubmit the associated construction plans for the 12" waterline in accordance with Master Utility Plan. Reviewed by: Alan Gibbs Date: 1-27-6 C7 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new n:view. 2 of 2 Regular Agenda 11 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 southwest of the intersection of Decatur Drive and Alexandria Avenue. The proposed land use plan classifications include a change from Residential Attached to a combination of Retail Regional and Single-Family Residential, Medium Density. Case #05- 500238 (LB) r STAFF REPORT • Prepared by: Lindsay Boyer Report Date: Janua 23, 2006 ry Email: Iboyer@cstx.gov Meeting Date: February 2, 2006 Item: 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 southwest of the intersection of Decatur Drive and Alexandria Avenue. The proposed land use plan classifications include a change from Residential Attached to a combination of Retail Regional and Single-Family Residential, Medium Density (05-238 LB). Applicant: Spring Creek CS Development, Ltd, Mr. Wallace Phillips, property owner Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the original request. However, should the Commission consider it appropriate to continue non-residential uses beyond the greenway buffer, Staff supports the alternative request of Single-Family Residential, Medium Density at the north end of the property, Retail Regional at the intersection of Decatur and Arrington up to 500 feet from Arrington, with the remainder identified as Office. Item Background: This item was brought before the Commission on January 19, 2006. The property owner requested an amendment to the Land Use Plan from Residential Attached to approximately 20 acres of Retail Regional and 8 acres of Single-Family Residential, Medium Density. At that time, staff recommended denial of this request and • alternatively recommended for Single-Family Residential, Medium Density for the entire tract. At the meeting, the applicant brought forth an alternative option for approximately 7 acres of Retail Regional within 500 feet of Arrington Road, the remainder of the original Regional Retail portion of the request to be considered for Office to buffer between retail and residential uses. A public hearing was held and closed at the January 19`" meeting, and the item was tabled to give Staff time to consider the applicant's alternative proposal. In the past, the City has used natural greenway buffers as a logical transition point between incompatible land uses. Greenways typically serve as natural vegetated and or distance buffers to preserve neighborhood integrity and reduce the potential impact of intense retail and service industry development on neighborhoods. Public right-of-way is also considered a natural break between uses. Staff maintains that the area identified as Greenways on the Comprehensive Plan which is made up of a conservation easement and a large regional detention facility, serves as an important distance buffer between the established and future neighborhoods north of Arrington Road and the retail development of Greens Prairie and State Highway 6. Further retail development seems unnecessary given the proximity to a large amount of vacant property planned for Retail Regional. However, should the Commission consider it appropriate to extend non-residential uses • beyond the existing buffer, Staff supports the alternative plan presented by Mr. Ellison at the January 19, 2006 meeting. This proposal incorporates step down land uses away from the Arrington Road intersection, fulfilling the goal of transitioning between • incompatible land uses. Additional Background from previous Staff Report: 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. Maps NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 1-3-2006 and 2-7-2006 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): January 19, 2006 • Advertised Council Hearing Dates: February 23, 2006 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners within 200': 28 Responses Received: None to date as of the staff report. • a "',R r. 'r m ~ ~,' q ~ e~' NRi r~ ~ 30 " s~~ .. ~ e €o V U U y~~e U h, o a ~~ ob U a ~ ~'~ / ~ • , V b~ ` ` U ~, ` ~~ Irby s€ o ~~ ~ j~ s" ~ ° ~ ~~ ao~~ ` '- / t ~ Goi ~` Q o`;eoh" ~ ,v G) ~~~ v l~ ~° t o _ _ ~' R ~ ~b f ~ s _ 'g`~ o~= ~, q.q~, ,,~hn. *A~ ~,` f1s^7`, ,^ro c~ ~,~~h.4 n L r 4`R n ~~ Q .. = "- ~~ . ~ " ~ A.." _ err nY4 4a _ h~,b,m f. s~ $ oR7 J hJN ... ~ -A s* b~~` ° •ryR ~ R 377 a'* ~ ",,." eg ~^ An • f fie. a '~, 8 . r~~ o r~ w° U ~i ~~ ~ U ' N U (- rR, ~ r ~r (off c3 ~, ~, j V (+yl i4S f ~~ Q ~~ a ~\ i Z y g -~ n a . Z W ~ Ua M N o ~ a aj c~ U W ~J ~,°.= Y W ~~ i~tii ~ r~i ~ ~ R~ ~' U r3 r~ " ~j z Q ~1 8 p V/ i° ~g t8 a "~r W z ° ~ ° ° ~W~// R A N.. R +~ ! W # 9 A ~4 ^ iq,~~•, O a,~~~ ~2 ~ a'a ~ • ~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION plan~:ing d' Development Services FQ~2 OFFI~ US~ NLY Case No. ,L~"J~~ 3 Date . ~ .. ~~ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION C7 • (Check all applicable) Q 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 Q 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: Spring Creek CS Development, Ltd. -Wallace Phillips E-mail: wallace.phillipsCa.verizon.net Street Address: 4490 Castlegate Drive City: College 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 Cast/e_gate Drive City: College Station State: TX Zip Code 77845 Phone Number: (979)690-7250 Fax Number: (979)690-1041 Pa~~c l of TRACT 2 - 20.034 ACRES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM .7 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 of 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 Residenfia/-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 if 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 Phis policy. In addition, Phis 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 /CJ.,~C / 9 - Off' Date Page ~ of TRACT 1- 7.975 ACRES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM • The followin is re uired if an amendment to the Land Use Plan is requested. Based on the nature and 9 q 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- familyhousing in this area. • How does the requested land use designation further the goals and objectives of the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan? Mu/fi-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 Phis change would prevent the development ofmulti-family housing adjacent to the existing homes. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. J ~ Signature and Title ,~.~ ~ ~ -mss Date l'a~=e 2 of i' ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,! ;~ I~ ~ ~~~ ~~ o ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ., w °~ W .--, ~s ~~ I 0 r= _; . 1 ll~l !I~~I ~_ ~ ~ - ~;:; ;.;.;.; l.l.l l ~ ~I ~ ~E~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ 7 \T , -I~ ~~ ~~~~ ~' ~ ~, r ~ ~! a` `~d \~ •'.` ~ OsU \~ ~.~~ Peon uol3Yµ{Y,~lp --- -... w w w ~~e` _ _ ~ ~` ~U7Q ~ ~ ~~ fp~Q~Z ~s+ ~z<gc~ Z ~ '~, r.~Q°~ a~J w m Z F ~ J ~¢oa~i ~~OaC Uwa ~, VIII 1I II I -~ ; 1 i'1~ I j w = uwi ~~ ~ jl W~ao II a2Z~zul 1 II ~agag° II ~~t-ao~ /' 1~ II ~~wZ~o ]~O o a ~~ ~ li via w ~ ~ w = ~ W ~Q=o~ , ,-- r I ~ ~¢ZK WZ ~ `, g ag ~ r ~ ~~WZ~n~a ^ LL ~ ~ r a 1 ¢Od W - c ~ _ in ~ ~l_ X'~ ~~~~ ` i i ; I I. t ~ ''"~ II ;' III ,` ~_. .~ , III '