HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/2005 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning CommissionPILE Copy
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
•
P/anni~ d Development .Service
AMENDED AGENDA
Workshop Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, October 6, 2005, at 6:00 p.m.
Administrative Conference Room,
City Hall
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Call the meeting to order.
2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items.
3. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on the P&Z Plan of Work.
4. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding staff's research on tree preservation
and protection. (JR/CH/NM)
5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming
Meetings:
• October 10, 2005 -Subdivision Regulations Special Meeting with Mark Smith -
Council Chambers -11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
• October 12, 2005 -Impact Fees Areas Training -Council Chambers 1:00 p.m. to
5:00 p.m.
• October 17, 2005 -New Commissioner Orientation -Planning & Development
Services Office -11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
6. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member
may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific
factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shaIl
be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
7. Adjourn
Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the College Station Planning
and Zoning Commission, College Station, Texas will be held on the 6th day of
October, 2005, at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall Administra#ive Conference Room, 1101
Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas. The following subiects will be discussed, to
wit: See Agenda,
Posted this the day of October, 2005 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
Governing Body 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.csbc.aov. The Agenda and Notice are readily acxesstble to the
general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on October
2005, 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 Ctty Hall on the following date and time: by
Dated this day of .2005.
•
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
BY.
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of
2005.
Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas
My commission expires:
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available.
Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the
meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) i-800-735-2989.
Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gQv. Council meetings are broadcast live on
Cable Access Channel 19.
•
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
•
Planning d Development Services
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, October 6, 2005, at 7:04 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 door 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, Consertt Agenda, are caasidered rrotttirte by the Planning artd Zoning Commission
and will be enacted by one motion. These items include preliminary and final plots, where staff has found compliance
rt~ith all minimum subdivision regulations. All items approved by Consent are approved with ary and all staff
recommendations. There will not be separate discussion of these items. If ary Commcssioner destres to dtscttss arr ttent
on the Consent Agenda it will be moved to the KegularAgenda forfirrther consideration.
3. Consent Agenda.
3.1 Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for the Valley
Park Center consisting of 4 lots on 11.63 acres generally located at the northwest
corner of Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818) and Raymond Stotzer Parkway (FM
60). Case #05-500129 (TF/AG)
3.2 Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for the Spring
Creek Commons Subdivision consisting of 5 lots on 50.547 acres, developing in 4
phases and generally located at the northeast corner of Greens Prairie Road and SH
6. Case #05-500161 (LB/AG)
3.3 Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for Edelweiss Gartens
Phase 9 consisting of 42 lots on 10.244 acres, generally located on the west end of
Eagle Avenue, southwest of the extension of Brandenburg Lane. Case #05-50015'7
(TR/JN)
C,
3.4 Discussion and possible action on:
• Minutes -September 15, 2005, Regular Meeting
Regular Agenda.
4. Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence from meetings.
5. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda
by Commission action.
6. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action on an ordinance to amend the
City's thoroughfare plan east of Earl Rudder Freeway South, between North Forest Parkway
and Raintree Drive. Case #05-500163 (KF)
7. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning from A-O Agricultural Open to
R-1 Single Family for Fojtik approximately 45 acres of the Fojtik tract, generally located off
of North Forest Parkway to the north and just east of Earl Rudder Freeway .Case #05-
500139 QR)
8. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Master Development Plan for the Fojtik
tract consisting of 47.7 acres generally located off of I~TOrth Forest Parkway to the north, and
just east of Earl Rudder Freeway. Case #05-500140 (JR/JN)
9. Public hearing, presentation, discussion and possible action on a Comprehensive Plan
• Amendment to amend the Land Use Plan for 450 Earl Rudder Freeway South and vicinity
from Floodplain and Streams to Regional Retail. State Highway 6, the College Station City
Limits and University Drive East delineate the area for consideration. Case #05-500164
(TF)
10. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for a portion of a
tract of land affecting 4.435 acres generally located at 450 Earl Rudder Freeway South
approximately 1500 north of the SH 6/University Drive intersection along the southbound
frontage road from R-1, Single-family Residential to C-l, General Commercial. Case #05-
500160 (TF/JN)
11. 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 6th day of October,
2005, at 7:00 p.m. at the Clty Hail Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue, College
Station, Texas. The following subjects will be discussed, to wit: See Agenda.
Posted this the day of September, 2005 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
Governing Body 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 Hali, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's
. webslte, y~pp-~(, .aov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the
general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on September
2005, 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 Hali on the following date and time: by
Dated this day of , 2005.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
By
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of
2005.
Notary Public- Brazos County, Texas
My Commission expires:
• This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available.
Any request for sign interpretive service must be made 48 hours before the
meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3517 or (TDD) i-800-735-2989.
Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.aov. Council meetings are broadcast live on
Cable Access Channel 19.
.7
Workshop Agenda 3
Presentation, discussion, and possible
action on the P&Z Plan of Work.
•
•
•
N
13+ v
a ~ ~
~ ~ O
N O
O O
O O
O
.,.e
U~
v
a"
°'
~w
w
w
w
~ w
\ ~
~ ~
Q ~i
•~~ ~ ? a' ~ ~~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ o ~v '5 ~~ ~
O
~S
~o
•~
~
°.~
~~~ ~
~ °o
c~ z o ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ •~
.x ~ ~ ~ . ~
~ :~ •o ~ ~
O p
U
~ qq
N N
,~ ~ `~
~"~ ~.+ 'O
o
~
~ ~ a
~ ~
ti
~ ~
~
~
~
~ xx
w
~
~
~
~'~
3
~~
~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ a,
..
~
~' °~'
Ci
'"i
>
>
a ~'
~ a
>_
W V
~ v ~
~ ~ ~
. ~.~,
~
[
a
~
~
~
~
~
c
~
~
~ ~
~•~ ~
.5
~
~ ~
o
~ ~~
o
00 •
~. v ~ c ~ ~ Q a~
~
o
5g
~ _
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ • a a ,b a~ a o a o~
.~
~ ~
~ a~r~ ~ ~
~ ~'rob
~ ~~
... ~ ~ ~~-" ~i
~ ~ U i 5
U v ~' o
~
a
a 3 ~
~.~ o C
~~ ;
~~
~.~ z
o
..
~
~ ~ ~ ~~
~~yy
~1 ~ ~ ~ u ~ v V~ ~ ~ v a ~ ~
• Icy
~~yy
~y
N
4,
,b
a3
~ ,--~
~
.~,,
~
~
C7
• ~
~
F~
.~
~
y ~ o o s a ~
F" a
i a
°~ o
~
I • raj ;~
O ~ ~ a~ a
~ yam, tj" ~
~ ~ ~
y ~ y W ~
~
;;
~ ~ LV J i~
~~~~
a
~
o
~
A3 ,b
~~
, ~ ~ .
~a 3~ ;~ ri ~.~ ~ ~a ~ as
.--. ¢ cV M ~' l!1 ~ ~ ~
0
0
rn
ii
A
-.Q
a~+
v
a
0
a
rn
~o
a
•
•
~ S
~ ~ ~
..,
o
V i~ c
N
~ a
r
a 0
~
o o
O
N ~
.a .
~°
~~ 3
!t ~ o
c
~
0 ~ o
v ~ o w7
N o ~ °
3 a,
z ~ .~
~~
o ,~
o ~ ~ ~-°~~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~~a ~ ~
.
~ ~
a
o
~
~
~
Q >
.o ~ ~,
~
• ~
~
L O p
~ ~
f O C
~ a
~ O ~~++
~ v
j
~
a
~
°
~ «
.~„~
~~~ i
.~„~
oar i cd
.y°~
oo~
Q ,~ w ~ ~, b~ ~, ~, b~ ~ ~,
V ~ ~~~b ~~~b ~~~b
~
~
a ° ~ ~ ~
a ° ~~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~~ ~
fir" O ~5n ~ a~ ~ •~, n~ a~ ~ •~ ~ a~ ~
~ ~ -d o a~
~
bw~ ~ b o v
~'d
~
~ ~ b o a
~
d
Q
'~
y . o
. '
4
+
~ °~~~ °~~~ ~~~~
~3 ~ ~. ~ ~. ~
~ ~~~~ ~~~b ~~~b
.~.,
W
U
~~
~
O F~
a ~ ~ ~ N
~ ~ ~
H v
~ N
V~
O
a ~~
0
w
0~
a~
.~ ~ ~ b
~
~ ~x
cV c~i d' vi
u~
C
rn
u:
n
v
d
N
N
m
l6
•
C,
•
~
O. +~+ ~
V 4 ~
S
~
o
p
pp p,
N >e
,1 r 0 p
N ~
o0 O
N
V i
y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a
~ Q \
ci,
J
q.q
bb ~ c.
N
~ ~0.i ~
a ~ a
~ o
~ ~ao
O
~~'~
~
~ ~
~ az
~
~
N
o ~ 0
~~
. 3 w
~ O
rx .
o
-~
•
Z ,~
^,
'~ ~ .~
.~ ~,
'~
'g
a.
A
~ ~
~ .~
~ ~ °
N W ~ w ~
O
~... ~y
i]4
~ N
~ ~
~
~
¢
~ Q
^.y L
a ~
~ o
~
o ~
, ~
•~ ~ •~
a a
~
~ ~ V
~
~ °
.
~" °
o, o
N
o
~ ~ :~°°
z
~
~
'~"
~
~ ~
~
a ~ ~ ` ~
b ~ 3 H ~
~ h ~ . .
~ ~
H ~
o
~n~r .~'~' woau~ 3 ~,U ~ ~ y ~
N M `el' V1 ~O [~ 00 Oq
a
rn
rn
'O
a
0
M
d
l6
d
0
• rn
~+
~ o >.
o, ~u o 0 0 0 ~ r~ ~
~' ^ ~ N N N
U~ 00 O N N O CS ~V d.
...+
~ A ~ ~ ~ o
O "~ -~ U
^' fi C
~ ~ .~ ~ ti
~ ~~~o Q ~~
~ ~ ~'~ o~i :~ ~ ~~
~ ° a~ i ~ c ,~ V U
L °~ ~ h
~ ~ ~ a ~ ~
~ ~ ~ w ~
RS ~ v •~ y0.°,
~.
~ W ~ a is a. a ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~.
O v~ ~ 'Zt o 0 0 o O y '~ ~~ ~o i o
• .~ 0 4i v v ~ v V ~ w~U°~ri ~
•,~'" ~ u a' ~~ a
~ ~ C
a ~ V N
O ~ c W °~
U ~ v o o
.Y ~~ ~ ~
~ A ~ o ~
.~ ~ ~ ~ ti
0 ~ ~ U a
N o w ~N
~~
a ~ ~ ~
~" ° ,r ro
.~.. Q0 ~ o
C o0
0
is ° ~ ~'~~ ° ° ~ U
~ Q ' ~ ~ ~ j Nq ~ .~ ~Y ,~ U
v ~ ~ a~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o~ o~
.,..e ~ ~ .n a, O ~.
tom, a~o~ a~°y ~ o ~ ~.~ ~a•~~ ~ ~ fi ~
.~
M ~ as Q A ~ ~ C5
•
Regular Agenda 3.1
Presentation, discussion, and possible action
on a Preliminary Plat for the Valley Park
Center consisting of 4 lots on 11.63 acres
generally located at northwest corner of
Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818) and
Raymond Stotzer Parkway (FM 60). Case #05-
129 (TF/AG)
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Trey Fletcher
Email: tletcher@cstx.gov
Report Date: Sept. 22, 2005
Meeting Date: October 6, 2005
Item: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for the
Valley Park Center consisting of 4 lots on 11.63 acres generally located at the
northwest corner of Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818) and Raymond Stotzer
Parkway (FM 60). (05-500129)
Applicant: Steve Duncan, Pledger Kalkomey agent for owners, Southcorp
Holdings I, L.P. and Por Nada Joint Venture
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat
as submitted.
Item Summary: The developer of the Valley Park Center is proposing a
planned, light industrial business park consisting uses a mix of uses that are
permitted in C-1 and C-2 zoning districts.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan shows this area as
Regional Retail. Regional Retail is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as "areas
• permitting regional-scale development of tax generating developments such as
retail centers, service commercial, restaurants, etc. These uses are generally
dependent on good access to highways and major arterials." The F&B Small
Area Plan (2003) evaluated this area generally between FM 2818 and Turkey
Creek Road, north of FM 60. The land use portion of this plan acknowledged this
notion and provided additional thoroughfare access to the interior of the area
(see Infrastructure & Facilities comments), and suggested that Regional Retail
while still appropriate in this location should also accommodate C-2 and light
industrial uses. Consideration for this was based on several factors, including:
• Limited access from FM 2818
• Limited visibility due to the grade separation and elevated speed limits
• Beneficial proximity to Easterwood Airport, Research Park, and truck
routes
Due to the proximity to Easterwood Airport, an Avigation and Clear Zone
Easement exists at the southernmost portion of the parcel. In this area, land
uses and height are restricted.
The Preliminary Plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Item Background:
Annexed: 1970
• Rezoned: The entire tract was zoned C-1 General Commercial, most of the
tract was rezoned to C-2 Commercial-Industrial in August, 2005.
• Platted: Two tracts (2.0-acre and 9.63 acres); a preliminary plat application
incorporating both has been filed (05-129)
S~
• 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Development activity in the vicinity: Approximately 7.5 acres along F&B
Road were annexed by petition in 2004. The tract was rezoned from A-O to C-
1, in 2004. A preliminary plat has been approved for the same area. Amini-
storage warehouse was proposed on a portion of the property.
Budgetary & Financial Summary: Oversize participation has been requested
for the extension of a water line indicated on the Water System Master Plan.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: N/A
Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the
Preliminary Plat. The options regarding the final plat are:
^ Approval with conditions;
^ Approval as submitted;
^ Denial;
^ Defer action only at applicant's request; or,
^ Table only at applicant's request.
apporting Materials:
Location Map
Aerial Map
Application
Infrastructure and Facilities
Copy of Preliminary Plat
n
U
}
Q
~ TECHNOLOGY LOOP Z
• v ~.~, ~ a
w
z`O~S ~
o a
a
~~
~ ~tGa~~~Q~ ~J N
~J~y~
l~
U
~-
~ i~
~ ~
~~,, w
~'~o~ U
o Y
~ Q
4 ~ >-
.o~o/ Q ~ J
bf s~ Q
~'~o, ~
~~5 Go W
~~ ~ W
Od, P~`o? ~ P+ ~
5~
9 y ~G~ ~ Z
v°~~ ° WW
~n~nn~n ^G^
L~J ~ I.L
0
~ .> J
~ W
_ _ o
~~~J~~~~~~~• ~ e, ~
ea
Z
°o
<.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
~ P&Z CASE NO.: -O ~C/v (~ 1
~TY OF COLLEGE STATION DATE SUBMITTED: I -" ~ b ~CJ
Planning d Development Services l~ -~p~'`
3 t 0 a 't'"~
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.
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.)
One (1) copy of the approved Master Plan if applicable.
. A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
Rezoning Application if zone change is proposed. (previously submitted)
Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provide proof of
approval (if applicable).
Date of Preapplication Conference:
NAME OF SUBDIVISION Valley Park Center
~ECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Northwest Corner of FM 2818 and FM 60
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): (ENGINEER)
Name Pledger Kalkomey, Inc. -Steve Duncan
Street Address 7020 Coyote Run City Bryan
State Texas Zip Code 77808 E-Mail Address sedt'a~pkengineering.com
Phone Number (9791 731-8000 Fax Number (979) 731-1500
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for
multiple owners):
Name Southcorp Holdings I, L.P. -David Hillman
Street Address 3401 Allen Parkway, Ste. 200 City Houston
State Texas Zip Code 77019 E-Mail Address dhillman(a~southcorprealty.com
Phone Number (713) 960-1880 Fax Number (713) 355-4275
' OWNER # 2:
U
Name Por Nada Joint Venture
Street Address P.O. Box 8131 City The Woodlands
State Texas Zip Code 77387 E-Mail Address
Phone Number 12811363-2220 Fax Number
6/13/03 ~ of ~
_,
Total Acres Of Subdivision 11 ~~~ R-O-W Acreage 1.00 d ~
Number Of Lots By Zoning District 4 / C1 !
rage Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
2.66 / C1 / /
Floodplain Acreage NIA
Parkland dedication by acreage or fee? NIA
Total # Of Lots 4
A statement addressing any differences between the Preliminary Plat and approved Master Plan (if applicable)
NIA
Requested variances to subdivision regulations & reason for same
NIA
Requested oversize participation
See development permit application dated today.
Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat:
E:
# of Acres to be dedicated
# of acres in detention
OR
FEE IN LIEU OF LAND:
# of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 = $
NIA
# of acres in floodplain
# of acres in greenways
(date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Board
The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stafed herein and exhibits
attached hereto are true and correct. The undersigned hereby requests approval by the City of
College Station of the above identified plat and attests That all respective owners have been identified
on this application.
Signature and Title
Steve E, Duncan, P.E., V.P.
•
July 18, 2005
Date
6/13/03 2 of 2
• INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: An 18" water line is available for extension from the intersection
of F&B Road and FM 2818.
Sewer: No municipal sewer exists in the area. This utility is being made
available through an existing Inter-local Agreement (ILA) with Texas
A&M University.
Streets: The parcels have frontage along Harvey Mitchell Parkway
South (FM 2818) which is shown as a Freeway on the Thoroughfare
Plan. There is no frontage road. A future Minor Collector is shown near
the western property line to extend from the FM 60 Frontage Road and
back to Turkey Creek Road, but is not necessary for this development.
Extensive dialogue among the City, TxDOT and the applicant have
established two fixed points of access directly to FM 2818 as indicated
on the plat. This, in combination with a small extension of the FM 60
Frontage Road, provides adequate access to this development. On-site
circulation will be private.
Off-site Easements: None are required at this time.
Drainage: Surface drainage to TxDOT right-of-way to the south and
east.
• Flood Plain: None, shown as Flood Zone X.
Oversize request: See Budget and Financial Summary above.
•
Regular Agenda 3.2
Presentation, discussion, and possible action
on a Preliminary Plat for the Spring Creek
Commons Subdivision consisting of 5 lots on
50.547 acres, developing in 4 phases and
generally located at the northeast corner of
Greens Prairie Road and SH 6. Case #05-161
(LB/AB)
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Lindsay Boyer Report Date: September 21, 2005
Email: Iboyer@cstx.gov Meeting Date: October 6, 2005
Item: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Preliminary Plat for the
Spring Creek Commons Subdivision consisting of 5 lots on 50.547 acres,
developing in 4 phases and generally located at the northeast corner of Greens
Prairie Road and SH 6.
Applicant: Mitchell and Morgan, engineer for the owner.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat.
Item Summary: The subject property is being platted in preparation for a retail
development. This property includes the extension of Lakeway Drive, a Major
Collector on the Thoroughfare Plan, through the property. The plat shows
development in four phases, with the first phase being located along Greens
Prairie Road.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Comprehensive Land Use plan
designates this area as Retail Regional. The property has frontage on SH 6, a
• freeway, and Greens Prairie Road, a major arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan.
This plat includes a 50-foot vegetated buffer that is a condition of the rezoning
request. The condition requires a 100-foot buffer along the east side of the
property behind the houses, unless the drainage channel is improved upon
development of the property. The proposed plat includes the improvement of this
drainage channel, which reduces the buffer to 50 feet.
The proposed plat includes three access points from the frontage road; which
are in compliance with Texas Department of Transportation driveway separation
standards, and cross access is being granted through all the lots in this
development. There is also access from Lakeway and Greens Prairie Road.
This Plat is in compliance with all subdivision regulations.
Item Background: This property was annexed in 1983, and zoned A-O. The
southern half of this property was rezoned to C-1 in 1997, and the northern
portion in 2002 with a condition of a 100-foot buffer area along the eastern
property edge. This property has not previously been platted.
Budgetary & Financial Summary: None at this time.
• Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the
preliminary plat. The options regarding the preliminary plat are:
• Approval with conditions;
^ Approval as submitted; or
^ Denial.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Map
3. Application
4. Infrastructure and Facilities
5. Copy of Preliminary Plat
•
'~ r= q p ~ ~
~
p ~byy° mocl`9 ~~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~n70~~
//~~//
~
' u`$ ~ ~ J y m $ u e t
$
$
~ ~
V L"J
ff ~
tL.
$
,, .g g- , u~
~4., ~
~' ~ O Z
A q ^
~ ~~~~" ! R $ ,
.. ~ s ~'
rya
~ dao
ti
~Q
~o-
9
0 ~
_ ? ~ ~ ~~
~ 1 n ~ O~ ~R ~ ' g
~AG~ /
/3
•°4r '$ Sir Q9I ~'
~ R ~
'/' ~ /~/~
LL
y
•
~ ~ • ~ ~ 1
J
~~ ~ / W 4
' P
! ~ ; Dd,~, I
t~ X
~~ ~ a~ 0" "'~, 'a to
n
~
..
` n ~
.
~4~Oa . o r
~
ff + k ~
s~y,
, ~ R
'" ~' '~~ N p g !p
~~/'~
~ , ~
~
~ ~~
~
Pq r
0°
~ In
~
R / ~ r
~
~ J 7 . ~ '
~ 'A
P . 2
~ ~ ~ h0
~ ~ ~ U
~ d~
~ o ~E s°'
In' ! n 40.
~
~1 ~ ~
~+^
11"
rt~l
X'~ ? LJ
N
R
~
~
F{ ~ ~ lC `~ X
+ ~
S J° a ~ '
~ V
~
Pd' R`„ ~s~~$ g ~ O« V~
^
~ ~ ~ A ~X1 0
a s /r
°
~
°
~ 3 °' ya
~~
V
~
~
,~
Q
~
'
, S e
0e y~'S ~c
p~,
R ,~.
' . -a'W MIDGE DR. r
~ H R+,P
os G
N U
oQ
~~ ~
v v Y
W
aw
0 W
b,,d,
~ U
~
~~ O Z
2 .
'~
r Q N
LJ
..
a
J
M~~J
s
s
~ V
9'
'e !
Z
d ~
ya~~ / o
eD o O ---j o
~~
~ .o
O
a
I
W_
W
I-
Z
W
J
W
W
t_.:~ ~_~
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
~ P8Z CASE NO.:
ITY OF COLLEGE STATION DATE SUBMITTED: `
Planning 6 Development Services
PRELIMINARY PLAT .APPLICATION ~~~~ ~
Y~
The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P & Z Commission
consideration.
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
X Filing Fee of $400.00.
N/A Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations ~ $100 (if applicable)
X Application completed in full.
X Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A revised mylar original must be 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
Date of Preapplication Conference:
ME OF SUBDIVISION Spring Creek Commons
~ECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Northeast comer of SH6 and Greens Priarie Road
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name Mitchell & Morgan LLP
Street Address 511 University Drive East, Suite 204 City College Station
State TX Zip Code 77840 E-Mail Address ~mitchetlandmorgan.com
Phone Number 1979) 260-6963 Fax Number f979) 260-3564
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for
multiple owners):
Name Quorum 6 Green
Street Address 17400 Dallas Parkway Suite 216 City Dallas
State TX Zip Code 75287-7306
Phone Number X972) 380-1919
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
E-Mail Address
Fax Number
Name Same as Raplicant
• Street Address
State Zip Code
E-Mail Address
City
Phone Number Fax Number
otal Acres Of Subdivision 50.547 AC R-O-W Acreage 2.967 AC
Number Of Lots By Zoning District 6 /C-1 /
Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
8.42 / C-1 /
Floodplain Acreage 0.728 AC
Parkland dedication by acreage or fee? N/A
Total # Of Lots 6
A statement addressing any differences between the Preliminary Plat and approved Master Plan (if
applicable) N/A
Requested variances to subdivision regulations & reason for same N/A
oversize participation We are looking into whether or not the water would qualify for oversized
Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat:
ACREAGE:
N/A # of Acres to be dedicated
N/A # of acres in detention
OR
FEE IN LIEU OF LAND:
N/A # of acres in floodplain
N/A # of acres in greenways
N/A # of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 =$
N/A (date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Board
e applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits
ttached 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.
i
l O
Date
•
•
,,~
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION CONTINUED:
• Name Marsh -Reeves Trust ETAL- Louise M Reeves TTEE
Street Address 5486E Euclid Ave. City Centennial
State CO Zip Code 80121-3574 E-Mail Address
Phone Number
C,
Fax Number
•
• INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water required for plat: A 12" waterline is required per the Utility
Masterplan along the proposed extension of Lakeway Dr.
Water Service: There currently exists a 24" waterline along SH 6 and
an 18" waterline with a 12" stub-out exists along Greens Prairie Drive.
Sewer required for plat: Due to proposed lot configuration, a 6" and
8" sanitary line is proposed with this Preliminary Plat.
Sewer Service: There currently exists an 8" sanitary line along the
proposed extension of Lakeway Drive.
Street required for plat: Lakeway Drive is required aligning with the
existing Lakeway /Greens Prairie intersection and extending generally
along the eastern boundary of the subject acreage.
Streets/Access: Both Greens Prairie Drive and SH 6 frontage road
exist and provide access to this site.
Off-site Easements required for plat: N/A
Drainage: The northern end of this tract abuts the Spring Creek
Floodplain and will likely not require detention.
. Flood Plain: There is a small acreage of floodplain encroaching onto
the northern portion of this tract.
Oversize request: None has been requested or is anticipated.
Impact Fees: This entire acreage is included within the 97-07 Spring
Creek Sewerline Impact Fee. A fee of $349.55/LUE will be required at
the time of Building Permit in accordance with the meter sizing
determining the Living Unit Equivalent (LUE).
Parkland Dedication Fees: N/A
•
Regular Agenda 3.3
Presentation, discussion, and possible action
on a Final Plat for Edelweiss Gartens Phase 9
consisting of 42 lots on 10.244 acres, generally
located on the west end of Eagle Avenue,
southwest of the extension of Brandenburg
Lane. Case #05-157 (JR/JN)
•
•
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves Report Date: September 22, 2005
Email: jreeves@cstx.gov .Meeting Date: October 6, 2005
Item: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for Edelweiss
Gartens Phase 9 consisting of 42 lots on 10.244 acres, generally located on the
west end of Eagle Avenue, southwest of the extension of Brandenburg Lane.
Applicant: Steve Arden, Edelweiss Gartens Venture, Property Owner
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat as
submitted.
Item Summary: This item is for a Final Plat of Phase 9 of the Edelweiss Gartens
Subdivision.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan designates this
property and the surrounding area for Single Family Residential -Medium
Density. Eagle Avenue is shown as a minor collector on the Thoroughfare Plan.
The plat is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and the previously
approved Preliminary Plat.
Item Background: The property was annexed in 1995 and zoned A-O
Agricultural Open at that time. The property was rezoned to R-1 Single Family
Residential in 2003.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Parks & Recreation Advisory
Board recommended acceptance of an additional 6.03 acres of land at their April
20, 2004 regular meeting. The Planning & Zoning Commission approved the
additional land dedication with the Preliminary Plat at their meeting on June 17,
2005.
Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the
Final Plat. The options regarding the plat are:
^ Approval
^ Denial
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Map
3. Application
4. Copy of Final Plat
•
a
~
~ v
,.'
~ Q
Z
~ d.
q 1
~~
~~ ~ F4
t ~~
~.
o a
ego-
-
~
k'4T ~
a
..
~,
,~
~
v
ti
u `~
o ~ o 0
5 0 ,
^'
1
'~ u U
I_ ,~~ .! ~
~-~ a
o,
8
`y~ ,,
-
~ r- ~
~ +~
~i
~~_ ~ ~
~ ~ _
~
~ ~~~
,;~ ~
t ~
4 ,~`~ a
y
~ Z
W
6
~
r1
'
O
~
~
'
~ a .. Q
~ ~
_ N
~,y ~ ~
(n
t
Cl ~~~ ~
~ o
~, ~o W
~
o r1i ~
~" W
~,~
i)
0
N
~
: r
~
~
~l r){
d ~.~
°
~u ~
-~ '- annaoer,~sw
~
~ Ir
~ ~'
`~ ~°
o
~
W
4 U
v W
g
~ G W
nc ~
ia1
~
N
v ~
p p
~
~
~ o
~ O
w
ry~ a ~~ ~
lil L3M ~ ``~
~ ~
~ ~
~ 4a~ w~ ~
o
~ k
Y
z - a
c
~~: ~ ~ t~
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
P&Z CASE NO.: ~..r
~1 i
• ~ //-- 5
DATE SUBMITTED: ~ (.~,
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION D ~ 3~ Q,{u,
Planning d Development Services f--""
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
(Check one) ^ Minor ^ Amending ®Final ^ Vacating ^ Replat
($300.00) ($300.00) ($400.00) ($400.00) ($600.00)"
*Includes public hearing fee
Is this plat in the ETJ? ^ Yes ®No
The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P&Z Commission consideration.
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
X Filing Fee (see above) NOTE: Multiple Sheets - $55.00 per additional sheet
N/A Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations ~ $100 (if applicab-e)
X Development Permit Application Fee of $200.00 (if applicable).
X Infrastructure Inspection Fee of $600.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed)
X Application completed in full.
X Copy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats (if applicable).
X Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review.)
X One (1) copy of the approved Preliminary Plat and/or one (1) Master Plan (if applicable).
X Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station I.S.D.
X A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
X Two (2) copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat (if applicable).
NIA Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provide proof of
approval (if applicable).
Date of Preapplication Conference:
NAME OF SUBDIVISION EDELWEISS GARTENS PHASE 9
SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (Lot & Block) R. Stevenson League, A-54, College Station.
Brazos Countv, Texas
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name Mr. Steve Arden Edelweiss Gartens Venture
Street Address 311 Cecilia Loop Ciry College Station
State TX Zip Code 77845 E-Mail Address
Phone Number 979-846-8788 Fax Number 979-846-0652
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple
owners):
Name (Same as above)
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
• Name McClure 8~ Browne Engineering/Surveying. Inc. E-Mail mikemtira~mcclurebrowne.com
Street Address 1008 Woodcreek Drive
City College Station State TX Zip Code 77845
Phone Number 979-693-3838 Fax Number 979-693-2554
6/13/03 1 of 6
~.` ,.P e
Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? Yes X No _
there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume N/A and Page #
Acreage ~ Total Property 11.146 acres Total # of Lots 42 R-O-W Acreage 3.31 acres
Existing Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Sin41e-Family Residential
Number. of Lots By Zoning District 42 / R-1
Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: 0.187 / R-1
Floodplain Acreage None
A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and approved Master Plan and/or Preliminary Plat (if
applicable):
The extension of Eagle Avenue is included with this phase rather than future phase
Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations & Reason For Same: None
Requested Oversize Participation: None
Total Linear Footage of
Proposed Public:
2529 Streets
3429 Sidewalks
2119 Sanitary Sewer Lines
2580 Water Lines
618 Channels
1544 Storm Sewers
-0- Bike Lanes /Paths
Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat:
ACREAGE:
# of acres to be dedicated + $ development fee
# of acres in floodplain
# of acres in detention
# of acres in greenways
OR
FEE IN LIEU OF LAND:
# of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 = $
(date) Approved by Parks ~ 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.
Si ature and itle ~ ~'~/..
•
~' dz o$-
Date
6/13/03 2 of 6
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
• Thursday, September 15, 2005, at 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, College Station City Hall
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Pla~ming c4' Developmrnt Services
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Scott Shafer, Commissioners Ken Reynolds,
John Nichols, Bill Davis and Harold Strong.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Dennis Christiansen and Marsha
Sanford.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: None.
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF PRESENT: Staff Planner Lindsay
Boyer, Molly Hitchcock, and Jennifer Reeves, Senior Assistant City Engineer Alan Gibbs,
Graduate Civil Engineers Carol Cotter and Josh Norton, Transportation Planner Ken Fogle,
• Director Joey Dunn, Assistant Director Lance` Simms, Planning Intern Crissy Hartl and Staff
Assistant Lisa Lindgren.
OTHER CITY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Attorney Roxanne Nemcik and
Action Center Representative Brian Cooke.
'The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
1. Hear Visitors.
No visitors spoke.
2. Consent Agenda.
2.1 Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for Spring Creek
Townhomes Phase 1B and Spring Creek Gardens Phase 2, consisting of 21 lots on
3.858 acres generally located at the intersections of ,Spring Garden Drive and Heath
Drive with Whispering Creek Drive. Case #05-142 (MH/Jlv)
2.2 Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for the Richards
Subdivision/Hampton Estates consisting of 8 lots on 0.97 acres generally located on
Sterling Street. Case #05-145 (LS/CC)
•
P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda September 15, 2005 Page 1 of 6
2.3 Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a request fox a Preliminary Plat for
Dove Crossing Subdivision, consisting of 107.759 acres, generally located along the
• south side of Graham Road, across from the intersection of Graham Road and
Schaffer Road. Case #05-135 (LS/CC)
2.4 Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for Dove Crossing,
Phase 1A, consisting of 47 lots on 9.618 acres generally located along the south side
of Graham Road, across from the intersection of Graham Road and Schaffer Road.
Case #05-136 (LS/CC)
2.5 Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for Dove Crossing,
Phase 1B, consisting of 41 lots on 8.451 acres generally located along the south side
of Graham Road, across from the intersection of Graham Road and Schaffer Road.
Case #05-137 (LS/CC)
2.6 Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for Dove Crossing,
Phase 1C, consisting of 31 lots on 7.625 acres generally located along the south side
of Graham Road, across from the intersection. of Graham Road and Schaffer Road.
Case #05-138 (LS/CC)
2.7 Discussion and possible action on:
Minutes -September 1, 2005, Regular Meeting
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the consent agenda.
• Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0).
Regular Agenda.
3. Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence from meetings.
Scott Shafer-September 1, 2005,'IXlorkshop & Regular Meeting
Commissioner Nichols motioned to approve the absence request. Commissioner
seconded the motion,-.motion passed (4-0). Chairman Shafer abstained from the
vote.
4. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda
by Commission action.
No items were removed from the Consent Agenda.
5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a revised Master Development Plan for the
Williams Creek Subdivision consisting of 642.51 acres generally located at the south-east
corner of Greens Prairie Road East and Rock Prairie Road. Case #05-47 (JR/CC)
Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner, presented the Master Development Plan and recommended
• approval as submitted. This item was approved in May 2004 and has been resubmitted in
order to show revisions regarding additional residential acreage that was previously shown as
part of the large reserve tract. The Master Plan is in compliance with the Land Use Plan.
P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda September 15, 2005 Page 2 of 6
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has recommended fee in lieu of land dedication.
There have been no phone calls received in reference to the project.
• Commissioner Nichols motioned for approval of the Master Development Plan.
Commissioner Davis seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0).
6. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action on the expansion of an existing
Conditional Use Permit for a Night Club, located in Suite D at 2551 Texas Avenue South in
the Homestead Place Shopping Center. Case #05-134 (LB)
Lindsay Boyer, Staff Planner, presented the item stating it was for the expansion of an
existing nightclub. Ms. Boyer stated that the original Conditional Use Permit was
recommended for approval by this Commission on April 19, 2005, and approved by the City
Council on May 12, 2005. The proposed expansion would allow for a fenced outdoor eating
area on hvo patios in front of the lease space. To date there have been no responses to any
of the notifications for the item.
Commissioner Strong asked for the hours of operation. Ms.''Boyer stated that the hours of
operation axe from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. on the weekends.
Ms. Boyer stated that the other businesses in the shopping center have generally regular
business hours.
Commissioner Nichols asked if the sidewalk served any other businesses in the area.
Commissioner Davis asked if alcohol beverages would be able to be served in the fenced in
area, and if there would be waitress service out to the .patio area.
• NIs. Bo per stated that the a licant could answer both of those uestions.
5 pp q
Iv~ark Sweden, Applicant, 3815 `Stone Creek, College Station, Texas. Mr. Sweden answered
questions of the Commission. ;Commissioner Davis asked for clarification regarding how
the alcoholic -beverages would be .served out on the patio area. Mr. Sweden stated that an
employee of the establishment would be delivering the food and drinks from inside the
establishment to outside the establishment and that patrons would not be taking food or
drinks from inside to outside.
Commissioner Reynolds motioned to approve the item. Commissioner Strong
seconded the motion, motion passed (4-1). Commissioners in favor of the motion:
Ken Reynolds, Scott Shafer, Harold Strong and John Nichols. Commissioners in
opposition: Bill Davis.
7. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning from A-O
Agricultural Open to R-1 Single Family for Fojtik (Rez) consisting of approximately 45-
acres of the Fojtik tract, generally located off of North Forest Parkway to the north, and just
east of Earl Rudder Freeway .Case #05-139 (JR)
Chairman Shafer stated that item 7 and item 8 would be handled in conjunction at
this meeting. Chairman Shafer stated that a comment was made earlier about the
• notion of tabling the item. The reason for this was because the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board had not completed a review of the Master Plan and making any final
determinations on what would happen in terms of parkland dedication.
P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda September 15, 2005 Page 3 of 6
Commissioner Shafer stated that the Commission was not able to make a decision on
item 8, but that the Commission would like to hear about items 7 and 8 together.
• ennifer Reeves, Staff Planner, recommended approval of the rezoning request from A-0,
J
Agricultural Open to R-1, Single-Family Residential. She stated the change to R-1, Single-
Family Residential is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Ms. Reeves stated that the
Commissioners were given a copy of all the e-mails regarding the Fotjik tract, and there were
three or four that were specifically in opposition of the rezoning request.
Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner, gave a presentation regarding access in the area. Mr.
Fogle stated that Raintree was planned, and had always been planned, to have multiple
access into it. In 1997 the Thoroughfare Plan vas amended with the full Comprehensive
Plan update, and at that time Appomattox was removed and the extension of Raintree was
added back. Mr. Fogle stated that safety and efficiency are two of the main reasons to allow
multiple accesses in this area.
Larry Claborn, 8303 Wildwood Circle, College Station, Texas. Mr. Claborn stated that he is
in favor of the project but that his concern was with the sewer treatment plan and would like
for someone to check on it and make sure it can handle the capacity before continuing with
any expansion.
Janice McBride, Ella Colvin and Cindy Dillard spoke ui opposition to the rezoning, h~laster
Development Plan and Thoroughfare Plan. They ..voices concerns about the possible
environmental impact and reclaiming the .land. They also stated that currently the
• neighborhood is a quiet and safe neighborhood with a low crime rate. They felt that if the
item vas approved it would. increase the crime rate in the area due to multiple accesses and it
would not be as safe for their children to play in the parks or ride their bikes. Ms. Dillard
also handed out a copy of a petition signed by residents against the Thoroughfare Plan and
flyers handed out in the neighborhood for this project.
Steve Arden, Developer,. 311 Cecelia Loop, College Station, Texas. lair. Arden gave a short
presentation regarding the project and the concerns of the residents. Mr. Arden stated that
it was his intent to bring both the rezoning and master plan to the Commission at the same
time but that unfortunately it did not work out that way. Mr. Arden stated that he is asking
for the support of the Commission in making a ruling on the rezoning and not wait until the
Master Plan comes back to the Commission.
Commissioner Nichols asked if Mr. Arden would address the questions regarding the old oil
well pad and the sewer capacity.
Mr. Arden stated that the old oil well pad had been inspected and a phase 1 environmental
study had been completed and the cleanup was supervised by the Railroad Commission and
it proves to be clean. Mr. Arden stated that there are a couple of old gas line stubs that
remain, but that they will be taken out because they are no longer in use. Mr. Arden also
stated that he would let Mr. McClure address the sewer issue.
Mike McClure, 9262 Brookwater Circle, College Station, Texas. Mr. McClure stated that he
• would defer this question to city staff, but that it was his understanding that the capacity was
there and if there was a problem with the odor it is an operational issue.
P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda September 15, 2005 Page 4 of 6
Alan Gibbs, Senior Assistant City Engineer stated that the capacity of the plant was more
than adequate for a plant of its size. Mr. Gibbs stated that any complaints are an operational
• issue.
Commissioner Davis motioned to table the rezoning until additional information
could be obtained and that the Rezoning, Thoroughfare Plan and Mater Plan can be
heard at the same time. Commissioner Strong seconded the motion, motion passed
(4-1). Commissioners Scott Shafer, Bill Davis, John Nichols and Harold Strong were
in favor of the motion. Commissioner Ken Reynolds opposed the motion.
Steve Arden requested clarification from Roxanne Nemcik, Assistant City Attorney,
regarding the legality of tabling the rezoning since it did meet all requirements.
Roxanne Nemcik, Assistant City Attorney, stated that a zoning is discretionary and that the
Commission can decide to table the zoning, deny the zoning or grant the zoning. Ms.
Nemcik stated that there is nothing that requires the Commission to approve the rezoning,
that the Commission can grant, deny or table a rezoning to a future date. The Mater Plan is
part of the platting process and that in the Unified Development Ordinance it states that the
zoning should be in accordinance with the Comprehensive Plan'and it will not be allowed to
plat unless the zoning is in accordinance with the plat.
8. Presentation, consideration and possible action on a blaster Development Plan for the Fojtik
tract consisting of 47.7 acres generally located at off of North Forest Parkway to the north,
and just east of Earl Rudder Freeway. Case #05-140 (JR/JN)
• Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner, presented the blaster Development Plan. The plan proposes
Single Family medium density.; .Staff supported the Master Development Plan with the
condition that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment be approved for the extension of
Appomattox before any portion of the street is reflected on future preliminary or final plats.
Ms. Reeves also stated that there would need to be a variance of the maximum 1200-foot
block length requirement ;at the preliminary plat stage. The Land Use that is being proposed
is in compliance with the City of College Station Land Use Plan. Staff does support this
plan but cannot recommend approval until this has been considered by the Parks and
recreation Advisory:-Board.
Commissioner Nichols motioned to table the Master Development Plan.
Commissioner Davis seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0).
9. Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning from C-2
Commercial Industrial to C-1 General Commercial for the Block 1, Lot 2 of the High Ridge
Subdivision, consisting of 1 lot on 8.14 acres generally located on the east side of Earl
Rudder Freeway between University Drive and SH 30, adjacent to and north of the Varsity
Ford Dealership. Case #05-141(LB)
Lindsay Boyer, Staff Planner, presented the rezoning report and recommended approval.
Ms. Boyer stated that the lot was in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations.
Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group, Consultant, College Station, Texas. Ms. Ruiz stated that Lindsay
• had covered everything regarding the item and that she would be glad to answer any
additional questions.
P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda September 15, 2005 Page 5 of 6
Sherri Ellison, 2705 Brookway Drive, College Station, Texas. Ms. Ellison spoke in favor of
• the rezoning but stated she did have concerns regarding the dedication of the floodplain as
greenways; she stated that she would like to see that it remain strictly floodplain.
Commissioner Nichols motioned for approval of the rezoning from C-2, Commercial
Industrial to C-1, General Commercial. Commissioner Strong seconded the motion,
motion passed (5-0).
10. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member
may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific
factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall
be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
None.
11. Adjourn.
Commissioner Davis motioned to adjourn.:. Commissioner Nichols seconded the
motion, motion passed (5-0).
Approved:
• Scott Shafer, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Attest:
Lisa Lindgren, Staff Assistant
Planning and Development Services
•
P&Z Minutes Regular Agenda September 15, 2005 Page 6 of 6
Regular Agenda 6
Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and
possible action on an ordinance to amend the
City's thoroughfare plan east of the Earl
Rudder Freeway South, between North Forest
Parkway and Raintree Drive. Case #05-163
(~')
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner I
DATE: November 13, 2003
RE: Thoroughfare Plan Amendment -Appomattox Drive
When the Raintree subdivision developed in the 1970's, Appomattox Drive was shown on the City of
College Station Thoroughfare Plan as a minor arterial. When the subdivision was platted, a portion of
Appomattox Drive was constructed and dedicated to the City. In addition, seventeen lots were
allowed to front and take access off of this arterial roadway. This situation remained the same without
Appomattox Drive being extended until 1997. Because of this, residents became accustomed to
Appomattox Drive operating like a cul-de-sac rather than a major thoroughfare.
With the City of College Station Comprehensive Plan update in 1997, the proposed extension of this
roadway was removed from the thoroughfare plan primarily due to concerns of cut-through traffic.
At that time, an extension of Raintree Drive to North Forest Parkway was included in the
• Thoroughfare Plan to provide a secondary access to the subdivision.
In August 2005, Mr. Steve Arden proposed to develop the Foltilc tract; development of this tract
would connect Raintree Drive to North Forest Parkway. As part of this development, Mr. Arden has
expressed interest in extending Appomattox Drive as a minor collector through the proposed
development with the intent of it ultimately connecting to Raintree Drive. City staff is in agreement
with this proposal and are jointly seeking this thoroughfare plan amendment.
Over the past two years, the City of College Station has worked to improve connectivity within and
between residential subdivisions. The primary benefits of connectivity include improving emergency
response and mobility. Emergency response is improved by providing multiple access points into a
neighborhood which shortens response times and provides alternate ingress and egress points in case
of an evacuation. Mobility is improved by shortening trips which also makes walking and biking trips
more practical. In addition, there are economic and environmental benefits that should not be
overlooked.
In addition to these benefits, there are other specific benefits of the Appomattox connection. One of
the neighborhood concerns regarding the connection of Raintree Drive to North Forest Parkway is
that is that Raintree Drive will become a primary thoroughfare carrying a significant amount of traffic
through the neighborhood. The addition of Appomattox Drive will provide a parallel route to
Raintree Drive m;nim;zing the amount of traffic through the neighborhood.
Another benefit involves the undeveloped land between the former Westinghouse facility and the
• existing Raintree subdivision. There are about fifteen (15) acres in this area that may be appropriate
for residential development in the future. If they were to develop residentially, about 1,000 more
residential trips would be generated with the only access points being on Antietam Drive and
Sumpter Drive, which are residential streets that currently dead end into this tract.
• City staff will be meeting with residents of the Raintree and Emerald Forest subdivisions on
September 27~, 2005 to discuss this item further. At that time, neighborhood concerns will likley be
raised. These concerns will be addressed in the staff presentation. If you have any questions prior to
the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, please feel free to contact me by a-mail
(kfogleC3cstx.gov) or phone (979.764.3556).
•
C~
~~
C7
•
Q~~ C6~
. , .~
BrazosLand
Realty ~ Properties
September 11, 2005
Mr. Joey Dunn, Director
Planning & Development Services
City of Coltege Station
Mr. Dunn:
Pending development of 47.752 Acres known as the Fojtik track, located between the present dead end of
Raintree Dr. and North Forest Drive requires the connection of those two streets by the City's
Thoroughfare Plan. A Master Plan has been submitted to the City for the development of the 47 acres into
single family residential lots which meets the required traffic connections. As you are aware, processing of
the master plan and zoning is underway through your Department. Unfortunately, even though the Master
Plan meets the street alignment ordinance requirements the results are not satisfactory for either the Fojtik
tract or our neighbors in the Raintree Subdivision. We are therefore, requesting to join with the City in a
Comprenhensive Plan amendment which presently requires Raintree Dr. to be the collector street through
the Raintree subdivision and the Fojtik property.
A combination of terrain/drainage ways, major easements, ownership boundaries, adjacent zoning and the
Raintree subdivision design all combine to preclude Raintree Dr. from being an effective traffic collector.
Rather than providing for good traffic dispersal, Raintree Dr. utilized as the traffic collector funnels traffic
through existing and future residential streets. Previous decisions made without an understanding of all of
the physical characteristics have placed an undo burden on residents of Raintree Subdivision and future
residents of the Fojtik track.
Of particular concern, is the ten to twelve unused M-1 zoned acres between the Westinghouse/Northrup
facility and the Raintree Addition. Land that when improved as presently zoned or separated for a future
alternate use would utilize access through present dead end streets, Antietam and Sumpter Drives, or an
ordinance required stub from the Fojtik subdivision. Like our Raintree neighbors, we do not want traffic
from incompatible uses traveling through residential neighborhoods.
Even with the connection of Raintree Dr. through the Fojtik property, Appomattox is a necessity between
Raintree Dr. and North Forest Pkwy. Emergency service, connectivity to Antietam and Sumpter Drives,
access to presently undeveloped M-1, land and general east side traffic circulation would all be enhanced
by re-establishing Appomattox as the neighborhood collector on the Comprehensive Plan.
Your helpfulness in addressing this issue is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Steve Arden
BrazosLand Realty n~ 1101 University Drive East Suite 108 ~ College Station, Texas 77840
7 979 846 5735 O F 979 846 0652 @ www.brazoslatidrealty.com
C
•
Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves Report Date: September 22, 2005
Email: jreeves@cstx.gov Meeting Date: October 6, 2005
STAFF REPORT
Item: Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning from A-O
Agricultural Open to R-1 Single Family for Fojtik consisting of approximately
45acres of the Fojtik tract, generally located off of North Forest Parkway to the
north and just east of Earl Rudder Freeway .
Applicant: Steve Arden, Brazos Land Reality
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request
from A-O Agricultural Open to R-1 Single Family.
Item Summary: This item was reviewed by the Commission last month on
September 16th and tabled until they could have a public hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The applicant feels this zone change is necessary because of substantial and
continued growth in the southern part of College Station.
• Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The subject property is currently zoned
A-O Agricultural Open and is shown on the Land Use Plan as single family
medium density. The properties to the north are zoned R-1 Single-Family
Residential which is a portion of Raintree Subdivision and M-1 Light Industrial
which is the old Northrop Grumman building. These two tracts are shown on the
Land Use Plan as Retail Neighborhood and Single Family Medium Density. The
property to the west is zoned A-O and R-1, and is shown on the Land Use Plan
as Institutional, which is currently Saint Thomas Aquinas Church. The properties
to the east and south are shown on The Land Use Plan as single family medium
density. The property to the south is currently zoned R-1 and developed as
Emerald Forest Subdivision. The property to the east is zoned A-O and is
currently undeveloped.
The City's Thoroughfare Plan reflects Raintree Drive connecting to North Forest
Parkway. Raintree Drive is considered a minor collector on the Thoroughfare
Plan. Appomattox is also considered a minor collector.
The zone change to R-1 Single Family is in compliance with the Land Use Plan;
therefore, Staff is recommending approval of this request.
Item Background: The subject property was annexed in the City of College
Station city limits September of 1977, and is currently not platted.
•
• Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body
on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council.
The Commission options are:
1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted;
2. Recommend denial;
3. Table indefinitely; or,
4. Defer action to a specified date.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Map
3. Application
4. Infrastructure and Facilities
5. Letters received from citizens
•
C,
O
a
o
a "~~~
~ ~,~
~'~~~
,~
rLt~ r
1. Y \1 a
Z_
Z
O
N
W
rn
u~
0
U
LS
`y ~F. F
~~ R ~gm g ~ Q
~~ F yp v ~y
,p R LL
R ~,t" - x
v < '~ Y
C ~~ ~ a
\^ c ~ ry g.~ ~ ry c„ ~O~h u~ Q O
A~ Rp ~ 6e
'
~ `
~ `" ~
R
R
o F{ ~gF gyp a
~ ~ '~v m
~
~ p
1
< F,
AR ~~- ° g R 8
p ^ .~
g R ~ „
F a~' ~
4;
~•i
1i
` ~=
{
~,
~ l•
I!M
u
-
Y R
R ~ f7
R Rg ~ F ~
c~
pup
P l1~'
.-
~ ~ o) ~
-
i,,S
~ ~C1
~
R R
p ~ ~ ~~
,~" ~
~'
n ~~ '
o
e ~ g
~,~y~ F ~
Icc'-0~ R ~
g R s
g
r
?t' o
~'S
C~
R ~ R ~ P ~
~d
\ F o
g
A
F
F R F~ R
R R~ o W s
F ~ n ~
~'p
o~ d
6 ~ G~
~;
a
~
nom a
z --
d ~
~,
~~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
..
(~
N~
o~
~~ ~
.
w
~OO~F~.NPY ~p,~SNI
l~~`
~a
~YPY~
Z
W
C
G
'~ o
~" W
c~ W
`1
~c
F
. '^ ~ ~~
•
ITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning tr' Development Services
CASE NO.O~~E ILY
DATE SUBMITTED
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING) APPLICATION
`~
~~
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
If a petition for rezoning is denied by the City Council, another application for rezoning shall not be filed within
a period of 180 days from the date of denial, except with permission of the Planning & Zoning Commission or
City Council. The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for consideration:
X Application completed in full.
X $500.00 application fee
X Two (2) copies of a fully dimensioned map on 24" x 36" paper showing:
a. Land affected;
b. Legal description of area of proposed change;
c. Present zoning;
d. Zoning classification of all abutting land; and
e. All public and private rights-of-way and easements bounding and intersecting subject land.
X Written legal description of subject property (metes & bounds or lot & block of subdivision, whichever is
applicable).
X The Rezoning Supporting Information sheet completed in full. R CAD (dxf/dwg) or GIS (shp) digital file
may be required for more complex rezoning requests.
Date of Required Preapplication Conference: August 8, 2005
APPLICANT'S INFORMATION:
Name Mr. Steve Arden
Street Address 311 Cecilia Loop
City College Station State Texas Zip Code 77845
E-Mail Address stevetu'~.brazoslandrealty.com
Phone Number (979) 846-8788 x24 Fax Number _ (979) 846-0652
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name Clement & Annie Foitik
Street Address 1260 S Oaks Drive City College Station
State Texas
Phone Number
Zip Code 77845 E-Mail Address N/A
Fax Number
This property was conveyed to owner by deed dated April 20, 1965 and recorded in Volume 246, Page
657 of the Brazos County Deed Records.
General Location of Property:
Address of Property: Earl Rudder Freeway South
Legal Description: Morgan Rector League A-46; College Station, Brazos County Texas
Acreage -Total Property: 44.407 acre tract
~xisting Zoning: A-O Proposed Zoning: R-1
Present Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Residential
6/13/03 Page 1 of 2
. ,~ `. y
h ' -~ • N
REZONING SUPPORTING INFORMAT~UN
r
1.) List the changed or changing conditions in the area or in the City which make this zone change
~ecessary.
Substantial and continued growth in the Southern part of the City of College Station.
2.) Indicate whether or not this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. If it is not,
explain why the Plan is incorrect.
This zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
~.) List any other reasons to support this zone change.
NI.
The applicant has prepared this application and supporting information and certifies that the facts
stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct. IF APPLICATION IS FILED BY
ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A POWER OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER.
Signature of own (or agent) or applicant
Date
•
6/13/03 Page 2 of 2
• INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: Public water is required to each platted lot. The surrounding
developments are supported by an 8" water main.
Sewer: Public sewer is required to each platted lot. The surrounding
developments are supported by an 8" sanitary sewer main.
Streets: In the proximity of the subject property, Raintree Dr. is listed as
a minor collector on the existing and the future thoroughfare plan. N.
Forest Dr. is listed as a major collector on the existing thoroughfare plan.
Appomattox Dr. is listed as a minor collector on the existing thoroughfare
plan.
Off-site Easements: none known at this time
Drainage: Drainage of this property is to Bee Creek Tributary "A". The
development project is required to comply with the City's Drainage
Policy.
Flood Plain: none on this site
Oversize request: none known at this time
Impact Fees: none
• Response Received: See Packet
U
~~ ~} Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Reeves -planning and zoning board/city council meeting ~ e2~ { ~ ~ P
.From: "Georgia F. Hogan" <hahogan@cox-internet.com>
To: <jreeves(acstx.gov>
Date: 9/15/2005 9:27 AM
Subject: planning and zoning board/city council meeting
Dear Jennifer,
It has been brought to our attention that there will be a meeting tonight concerning the rezoning of the property that backs up
to Raintree subdivision.
We have lived on Sumter Drive for 18 years and have enjoyed the fact that we don't have to be concerned with a lot of traffic
flowing through our neighborhood.
Because of that, we are opposed to opening Raintree Drive for future developments.
The safety of our children and those of us who spend time walking/running would be jeopardized if more cars were trying to
use our only outlet to the rest of the city.
by addition, we cannot be sure of just what kind of development is planned.
We don't know exactly what type of housing will be built.
This could possibly lead to problems for those of us who have bought homes here thinking that we would live on a dead-end
• street.
Please forward this information with our concerns to those who will be meeting to talk about this matter this evening.
Thank you.
Georgia Hogan
2513 Sumter Drive
College Station, TX 77845
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jreeves\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 9/15/2005
• From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Ms. Reeves,
"Robert Heller' <rwh~psyc.tamu.edu>
<jreeves~cstx.gov>
9/15/2005 8:25:23 AM
(Fwd) Rezoning Morgan Rector League A-45
My wife, Lisa, and I received your letter dated August 26,
2005 regarding a public hearing (Sept. 15, 2005) to
consider rezoning (A-0 Agricultural to R-1 Single Family) at
the request of Steve Arden. We live at 2506 Sumter in the
Raintree subdivision.
We will attend a funeral in Houston on Thursday and
cannot attend the hearing, which we had planned on doing.
We have a few concerns/questions:
(a) What type of R-1 single family homes are proposed to
be built in the rezoned area? Will these homes likely be
properties that are valued lower, the same, or higher than
the current values of properties in either Raintree or
Emerald Forest?
(b) What--ifany--will be the access(es) from Raintree to
this new proposed subdivision? The access that A&M
Church of Christ now has on certain days has affected safe
• traffic flow in the neighborhood. More "through" streets
into/out of Raintree threaten our neighborhood integrity and
safety.
(c) How will surface water drainage be managed? Our
property has less than adequate drainage when heavy
rains occur. Our property is actually lower than the street
level. Other properties/streets in the back areas of
Raintree seem to have rain drainage problems, as well.
How will development in the proposed area worsen or
improve this drainage problem?
We realize that change and development are inevitable in a
growing community like College Station. I trust our elected
and appointed officials understand the importance of
development in a manner that maintains the integrity of
established neighborhoods and .improves conditions in the
neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Rob 8~ Lisa Heller
2506 Sumter
College Station, TX 787845-4108
(979) 693-2712
CC: <lisaheffer~earthlink.net>
Page 1
• From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Pamela Polozeck" <bnzmom cLDhotmail.com>
<JREEVES@cstx.gov>
9/14/2005 10:53:24 AM
Re: proposed zoning of North Forest Parkway
Good Morning Jennifer,
think that the majority of the residents in Raintree are opposed to the
rezoning (and any other development) because of the increased traffic it
would bring to Raintree Drive if it is used as an alternate entrance to the
new subdivision, or made as a thoroughfare.
I can suggest a great solution to this issue. High traffic areas in
subdivisions within Austin have speed bumps to keep the traffic in line.
I realize that development of the areas surrounding Raintree is (at some
point) inevitable, but if the city would agree to these speed bumps (the
cost should be minimal), then I think the Raintree residents would feel more
at ease.
I'm surprised other subdivisions have not requested this already, but I am a
big believer in not presenting a problem without a solution, so for what its
worth, that is my suggestion.
What exactly do I need to do when I attend the meeting tomorrow?
Thanks for your attention to this.
• Pamela Polozeck
2507 Sumter
College Station, TX 77845
>From: "Jennifer Reeves" <JREEVES@cstx.gov>
>To: <bnzmom@hotmail.com>
>CC: "Joey Dunn" <Jdunn@cstx.gov>,"Ken Fogle" <Kfogle@cstx.gov>,"Lance
>Simms" <Lsimms@cstx.gov>
>Subject: Re: proposed zoning of North Forest Parkway
>Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:37:53 -0500
>Good morning -Thank you very much for your email. I will forward this
>letter on to the Planning & Zoning Commission. For your clarification on
>what will transpire on Thursday night is a rezoning and a Master Plan. The
>rezone is strictly land use. The request is to rezone from A-0 Agricultural
>Open to R-1 Single Family (not duplex or apartment), which is in Compliance
>with the City's Comprehensive Plan that is adopted by City Council. Staff
>is recommending approval of this zone request. There will also be a Master
>Plan going before the Commission at the same meeting that reflects the
>existing and proposed land uses, parkland, greenways and thoroughfares
>(like Raintree Drive). The extension of Rain Tree Drive is on the City's
>Thoroughfare Plan that is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
>This is not required to be scheduled for a public hearing. It is the
>Chairmans discretion to let citizens speak.
> ,
• >For my clarification -Are you apposed to the rezone request from A-O ro
>R-1 or the Master Plan that shows the future extension of Raintree Drive?
f.
Page 2
• >These are two separate items.
> Agaln, thank you for your input and I will pass your letter on to the
>Commission prior to the scheduled meeting this Thursday night at 7:00 pm.
>Please feel free to contact me if you have further concerns or questions.
>Thank you,
>Jennifer
>Jennifer Reeves
>Staff Planner
>City of College Station
>jreeves@cstx.gov
>(979)764-3570
>(979) 764-3496 FAX
>
> »> "Pamela Polozeck" <bnzmom@hotmail.com> 09/12/05 10:17 AM »>
>Ms. Reeves,
>Please consider this email an opinion on the proposed rezoning of the
>Morgan
>Rector League A-45 in College Station, Texas.
>I am, along with many residents in the Raintree subdivision, opposed to the
• >rezoning of the tract for the simple reason that I do not wish to have
>increased traffic in the subdivision. Rezoning and development of that
>tract will mean an alternate intrance via Raintree Drive and I specifically
>picked out this subdivision because there was no thru traffic.
>I love College Station and everything about it. The people, the community,
>the spirit. However I believe that if we don't voice our opinions and
>compromises made on both sides that College Station will in fact lose some
>of its ideallic charm.
>1 will attend the meetings in September and October, and hope that the
>committee rules favorably for the concerned citizens of the Raintree
>subdivision.
>Regards,
>Pamela Polozeck
>2507 Sumter
>College Station, TX 77845
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -it's FREE!
>http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471 ave/direct/01/
~{a qn~l~
• >College Station. Heart of the Research Valley.
MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM
Report Date: September 22, 2005
Meeting Date: October 6, 2005
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Reeves, Staff Planner
Email: jreeves@cstx.gov
SUBJECT: Master Development Plan for Fojtik (MDP)
Item: Presentation, consideration and possible action on a Master Development
Plan for the Fojtik tract (MDP) consisting of 47.7 acres generally located at off of
North Forest Parkway to the north, and just east of Earl Rudder Freeway. (05-
00500140)
• A licant: Steve Arden, Brazos Land Realit
pp Y
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Master
Development Plan with the condition that a Comprehensive Plan amendment be
approved for the extension of Appomattox before any portion of the street is
reflected on future preliminary or final plats. There would also have to be a
variance to the maximum 1200-foot block length requirement at the preliminary
plat stage as well.
Item Summary: This item was reviewed by the Commission September 16th
and tabled until they could have a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
The Master Development Plan (MDP) for the Fotjik tract encompasses 47.7-
Acres.The Plan proposes Single Family Medium Density (3-6 DU/AC).
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The subject property is currently zoned
A-0 Agricultural Open and is shown on the Land Use Plan as single family
medium density. The properties to the north are zoned R-1 Single Family
Residential which is a portion of Raintree Subdivision and M-1 Light Industrial
which is the old Northrop Grumman building, These two tracts are shown on the
• Land Use Plan and Retail Neighborhood and Single Family Medium Density. The
• property to the west is zoned A-O and R-1, and is shown on the Land Use Plan
as Institutional, which is currently Saint Thomas Aquinas Church. The properties
to the east and south are shown on The Land Use Plan as single family medium
density. The property to the south is currently zoned R-1 and developed as
Emerald Forest Subdivision. The property to the east is zoned A-O and is
currently undeveloped.
The City's Thoroughfare Plan reflects Raintree Drive connecting to North Forest
Parkway. Raintree Drive is considered a minor collector on the Thoroughfare
Plan. Appomattox is also considered a minor collector.
The land use that is being proposed on the Master Development Plan is in
compliance with the City's Land Use Plan therefore, Staff is recommending
approval of this request with the condition that the extension of Appomattox is
approved via a Comprehensive Plan amendment allowing the future stub out and
that the block variance is approved at the preliminary plat stage.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Map
3. Master Plan
4. Application
5. Letter from received from citizens
•
•
• ~ ~
W
o ~
a Q
a~ n
~~ ~~
~ ~ ~
a ~~~~ ~ o
C~QQ ° ~ya . " ~
Qua ~ ~ ~ a U
!J e
' CJ l~~
E
R
m
u ~~
4
^
_
S ~
°
r
~' '
o Cc~ O I_'S
CS L
C
sW °
w
b
''O de ~ fop s'~
1
°+
~'~ e
rA
y ~
yu
~ R
N^
R < ~4t
P ~ n
o o rv
o
m ^' ~°
P'A
R Q
~ yo r r
°~y
c r°
.~ Q
~~~
~ 0, ~ ^
eR S
ZP ° 4p
O° ~
m a
pr
3 ' ,~
~ °or~
y°~e ~ ~~~ o Y
°
1-5 m Qp2G Q
ho
a
g
f~
` y :'30 o
~~~ o Q
LL
~y~~ ; m
: ~
'S
' P
~
R
~~
a d
°
^ ° ° z
f ~, m
°
~
db
°
~
" ~r
~°p 1,~,
` ~n
V~
U1 n~n
llv r
J ° 5~
p
~
~ c
'J ~ Y
. ~~
~~
~
R P"
~
O
Q
Q _
C3
~ m
a~
Q'
rJ~~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ w
o'
r
~
m ~
O
lv ° S
u
.(y m ~
n/1 ~ O
~ ~ /
'~ ~' ~
~ ~ Y Sp~THI
°E0.FpEEW1. W
N
R ~6.`Ep0.l µU0
5 PTEN LL~
~~
L
t~ ~
~ r
" ^^
1..1.
-~~~- R
~ a d O
f
Rp p8y ~~ b ~ Q
d g
O~
^
v,
a
~~p U
a
"~ ~
~~ ~ y
Z
rJ SoS" ~ ~ a'
aE~
f ~
~
a~°°~~ U ~
~e~,
•
a _~-
• ~ ~ ~ •} FOR OFFICE US Y
DATE SUBMITTED: ' ~ V iJ
.~ ~'f ~~
~TY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning u' Development Services ~~~
MASTER PLAN 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 Application completed in full.
X Thirteen (13) folded copies of plan. (A revised mylar original must be submitted after staff review.)
Not available A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why
they are not.
X Rezoning Application if zone change is proposed.
Date of Required Preapplication Conference: August 8, 2005
NAME OF SUBDIVISION 47.752 Acre Foitik Subdivision
SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION N.W. of Emerald Forest Phase 10 Subdivision and
Subdivision in the MORGAN
LICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name Mr. Steve Arden
Street Address 311 Cecilia Loop
City College Station State Texas Zip Code 77845
E-Mail Address _stevet~brazoslandrealty.com
Phone Number (979) 846-8788 x24 Fax Number (979) 846-0652
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name Clement & Annie Foitik
Street Address 1260 South Oaks Drive
City College Station State Texas Zip Code 77845
E-Mail Address
Phone Number
ax Number
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
Name McClure & Browne Engineering/Surveying, Inc.
Street Address 1008 Woodcreek Drive, Suite 103
• City College Station State Texas Zip Code 77845
E-Mail Address MikeMCa~McClureBrowne.com
Phone Number (979) 693-3838 Fax Number (979) 693-2554
6/13/03 ~ 1 of 2
#.
~ .'1
a
TOTAL ACREAGE OF SUBDIVISION: 44.407 acres
~TAL ACREAGE BY ZONING DISTRICT:
44.407/ R-1 / /
TOTAL FLOODPLAIN ACREAGE: -0-
WILL PARKLAND DEDICATION BE MET BY ACREAGE OR FEE ? (CIRCLE ONE) To be Determined
(if acreage, please show approximate size and location on plan)
REQUESTED VARIANCES TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS & REASON FOR SAME
None
REQUESTED OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION N/A
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 plan.
0 ~~~ ~'~ ~ou~-
Signature and Title Date
•
6/13/03 2 of 2
~k° -~ ~, ~ ~~ Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Reeves -Extending Raintree Drive
•
From: "Mike Chandler" <jm-chandler(a~tamu.edu>
To: <jreeves(acstx.gov>
Date: 9/12/2005 10:51 AM
Subject: Extending Raintree Drive
TO: Jennifer Reeves
FROM: Dr. James M. Chandler
2500 Monitor Court
College Station, TX 77845
SUBJECT: Extending Raintree Drive
Raintree Drive should not be open to the new proposed subdivision behind the Catholic Church. The
developers should provide outlets directly to the feeder road on Hwy. 6. An excellent access road is
already available on the south side of the church and a second access road should be developed on the
north side of the church. Increased traffic on Raintree Drive will further deteriorate the road that is
already in very poor condition from the park to the current entrance on Hwy. 6.
•
U
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jreeves\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 9/12/2005
ik. .~ '€
Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Reeves -Raintree Development
•
From: "Kathy Newman" <newmansC~cox.net>
To: <jreevesC~cstx.gov>
Date: 9/14/2005 1:31 PM
Subject: Raintree Development
I would like to voice my opinion in the cut through of Raintree. Our children play
safely in our neighborhood. We would like to keep it like that.
As far as traffic goes, There is enough traffic in this neighborhood already. The
many students that live in this neighborhood run stop signs and drive too fast already.
I am at the corner of Raintree and Wiilderness and no one stops at that stop sign
anyway. We do not need any more traffic.
• 0
•
9/14/2005
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jreeves\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM
Page 1 of 1
~ .)
Jennifer Reeves -Raintree Drive Thoroughfare
• rom: "Bill Batchelor" <bbbtoms cox.net>
F @
To: <jreeves@cstx.gov>
Date: 9/12/2005 9:22 PM
Subject: Raintree Drive Thoroughfare
Howdy:
I am writing to express my solid disapproval of opening Raintree Drive so a developer can save a little money.
Everybody seems to talk about "neighborhood integrity" until a developer waves some money (in the form of more
tax revenue) in the face of elected officials. How repugnant! There is no valid reason to open Raintree Drive, save
the finances of a friendly developer. Thankfully, the wise and learned City Council will assuredly do what is best
for the lowly residents of Raintree.
Sincerely,
Bill Batchelor
8103 Raintree Dr.
Copy to P&Z and City Council
W.J. "Bill" Batchelor
Brazos Snacks Co.
• College Station, Texas
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
•
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jreeves\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 9/13/2005
~-- Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Reeves -Extension of Raintree Drive/Master Development Plan for the Fojtik tract
• From: "'ac" <'ac88 cox-internet.com>
J J C~
To: <jreeves(acstx.gov>
Date: 9/15/2005 2:53 AM
Subject: Extension of Raintree Drive/Master Development Plan for the Fojtik tract
CC: <jdunn crestx.gov>, <rsilvia~acstx.gov>
Ms. Reeves,
Reference the consideration and possible action on a Master Development Plan for the Fojtik tract
(MDP) consisting of 47.7 acres generally located at off of North Forest Parkway to the north, and just
east of Earl Rudder Freeway. (OS-00500140)
I am writing to tell you I am very much opposed to the extension of Raintree Drive to North Forest
Parkway. Extending Raintree Drive to North Forest Parkway will simply make Raintree Drive an
extension of Southwest Parkway and make automobile traffic along Raintree Drive both dangerous and
noisy for the residents of the Raintree subdivision. The planning department has conducted numerous
neighborhood workshops where residents have expressed neighborhood identity and limiting traffic as
their prime concerns. By extending Raintree Drive, you will simply being oring what the residents of
the eastside neighborhoods have expressed as their main concerns and worked to prevent over the last
twenty years. Additionally, by extending Raintree Drive the city will be moving backward (to current
trends in neighborhood planning) by making the priority of its planning automobile traffic and not the
• citizens and children that live and play in the neighborhoods. Our neighborhoods should be pedestrian
environments that will encourage foot traffic, neighborhood interaction and enhance the sense of local
community and not thoroughfares for automobiles.
As an added concern, Raintree Drive does not have sidewalks along both sides of the street and some
areas of Raintree Drive and the Raintree subdivision have no sidewalks. By extending Raintree Drive,
the city will be increasing risk to residents of Raintree by increasing the automobile traffic along a street
where residents are already forced to walk on the street.
Further, the City's comprehensive plan at one time (around 1999) showed a greenway buffer between
lots along Sumter Drive that back up to the Fojtik tract and any planned development to the Southeast. I
could not discern a buffer on the proposed development plan. Has this buffer been conveniently
deleted?
In addition, the city still has not resolved odor issues from the sewage treatment plant to the southeast of
the Raintree subdivision. This has been a lingering issue for many years. Any new development near
this sewage plant will further increase the number of upset citizens that will have to live with this
obnoxious problem.
Please do the right thing and keep Raintree a unique and safe neighborhood.
Sincerely,
• John A. Clark, AIA
2514 Sumter
College Station, Texas 77845
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jreeves\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 9/15/2005
Dr
• From: "Christine Hodges" <crissyhodges@dellmail.com>
To: <jreeves~cstx.gov>
Date: 9/14/2005 9:32:05 PM
Subject: Raintree Dr
Ms. Reeves,
I was shocked to find out about the proposed plan of opening up Raintree Dr to another neighborhood.
Raintree Dr. is the only entrance in and out of the neighborhood. Because of this, it is already a busy
street. We live on Raintree and fear that allowing more traffic onto the street will endanger our children's
safety. We have three children who walk to the park that is next door to us on Raintree Dr. Many kids
ride their bikes or walk to the park. Do we really need to put children's safety at risk for the convience of a
few people? We moved to this subdivision a year ago so our children could have a safe, quiet, family
friendly neighborhood to five in. Allowing other neighborhoods to use Raintree as a cut through street will
ruin the neighborhood as we know it by creating even more traffic flow, endangering our children's safety,
creating more noise by cars whizzing by, and increased crime. Please, for our children's sake, do not
allow Raintree Dr. to be the shortcut for other subdivisions.
Sincerely,
Christine Hodges
Concerened Raintree Resident
Get your free email from http://www.dellmail.com
•
•
__ Page 1 of 1
~ ~ ~~~
Jennifer Reeves -planning and zoning board/city council meeting Re2-'~ { l ~P
•
From: "Georgia F. Hogan" <hahogan~acox-internet.com>
To: <jreeves(a~cstx.gov>
Date: 9/15/2005 9:27 AM
Subject: planning and zoning board/city council meeting
Dear Jennifer,
It has been brought to our attention that there will be a meeting tonight concerning the rezoning of the property that backs up
to Raintree subdivision.
We have lived on Sumter Drive for 18 years and have enjoyed the fact that we don't have to be concerned with a lot of traffic
flowing through our neighborhood.
Because of that, we are opposed to opening Raintree Drive for future developments.
The safety of our children and those of us who spend time walking/running would be jeopardized if more cars were trying to
use our only outlet to the rest of the city.
In addition, we cannot be sure of just what kind of development is planned.
We don't know exactly what type of housing will be built.
This could possibly lead to problems for those of us who have bought homes here thinking that we would live on a dead-end
• street.
Please forward this information with our concerns to those who will be meeting to talk about this matter this evening.
Thank you.
Georgia Hogan
2513 Sumter Drive
College Station, TX 77845
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jreeves\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 9/15/2005
Jerinifer Reeves - Fwd Rezonin Mora '~"actor League A-45 ~ - , Pa e 1 ";
• From: "Robert Heller" <rwh@psyc.tamu.edu>
To: <jreeves@cstx.gov>
Date: 9/15/2005 8:25:23 AM
Subject: (Fwd) Rezoning Morgan Rector League A-45
Ms. Reeves,
My wife, Lisa, and I received your letter dated August 26,
2005 regarding a public hearing (Sept. 15, 2005) to
consider rezoning (A-0 Agricultural to R-1 Single Family) at
the request of Steve Arden. We live at 2506 Sumter in the
Raintree subdivision.
We will attend a funeral in Houston on Thursday and
cannot attend the hearing, which we had planned on doing.
We have a few concerns/questions:
(a) What type of R-1 single family homes are proposed to
be built in the rezoned area? Will these homes likely be
properties that are valued lower, the same, or higher than
the current values of properties in either Raintree or
Emerald Forest?
(b) What--if any--will be the access(es) from Raintree to
this new proposed subdivision? The access that A&M
Church of Christ now has on certain days has affected safe
• traffic flow in the neighborhood. More "through" streets
into/out of Raintree threaten our neighborhood integrity and
safety.
(c) How will surface water drainage be managed? Our
property has less than adequate drainage when heavy
rains occur. Our property is actually lower than the street
level. Other properties/streets in the back areas of
Raintree seem to have rain drainage problems, as well.
How will development in the proposed area worsen or
improve this drainage problem?
We realize that change and development are inevitable in a
growing community like College Station. 1 trust our elected
and appointed officials understand the importance of
development in a manner that maintains the integrity of
established neighborhoods and improves conditions in the
neighborhoods.
Sincerely,
Rob & Lisa Heller
2506 Sumter
College Station, TX 787845-4108
(979) 693-2712
~~Z~n.e~ M~'
• CC: <lisaheffer@earthlink.net>
~~Jennifer Reeves - Re: rb osed zonin o "`°'•yth Forest Parkway Pa e 1 .
• From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Pamela Polozeck" <bnzmom@hotmail.com>
<JREEVES@cstx.gov>
9/14/2005 10:53:24 AM
Re: proposed zoning of North Forest Parkway
Good Morning Jennifer,
I think that the majority of the residents in Raintree are opposed to the
rezoning (and any other development) because of the increased traffic it
would bring to Raintree Drive if it is used as an alternate entrance to the
new subdivision, or made as a thoroughfare.
I can suggest a great solution to this issue. High traffic areas in
subdivisions within Austin have speed bumps to keep the traffic in line.
I realize that development of the areas surrounding Raintree is (at some
point) inevitable, but if the city would agree to these speed bumps (the
cost should be minimal), then I think the Raintree residents would feel more
at ease.
I'm surprised other subdivisions have not requested this already, but I am a
big believer in not presenting a problem without a solution, so for what its
worth, that is my suggestion.
What exactly do I need to do when I attend the meeting tomorrow?
Thanks for your attention to this.
• Pamela Polozeck
2507 Sumter
College Station, TX 77845
>From: "Jennifer Reeves" <JREEVES@cstx.gov>
>To: <bnzmom@hotmail.com>
>CC: "Joey Dunn" <Jdunn@cstx.gov>,"Ken Fogle" <Kfogle@cstx.gov>,"Lance
>Simms" <Lsimms@cstx.gov>
>Subject: Re: proposed zoning of North Forest Parkway
>Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:37:53 -0500
>Good morning -Thank you very much for your email. I will forward this
>letter on to the Planning & Zoning Commission. For your clarification on
>what will transpire on Thursday night is a rezoning and a Master Plan. The
>rezone is strictly land use. The request is to rezone from A-O Agricultural
>Open to R-1 Single Family (not duplex or apartment), which is in Compliance
>with the City's Comprehensive Plan that is adopted by City Council. Staff
>is recommending approval of this zone request. There will also be a Master
>Plan going before the Commission at the same meeting that reflects the
>existing and proposed land uses, parkland, greenways and thoroughfares
>(like Raintree Drive). The extension of Rain Tree Drive is on the City's
>Thoroughfare Plan that is a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
>This is not required to be scheduled for a public hearing. It is the
>Chairmans discretion to let citizens speak.
• >For my clarification -Are you apposed to the rezone request from A-O ro
>R-1 or the Master Plan that shows the future extension of Raintree Drive?
Jennifer Reeves - Re: ro osed zonin of~`~';rth Forest Parkway -~ Pa e 2
J
• >These are two separate items
> Again, thank you for your inp
>Commission prior to the sched
>Please feel free to contact me
>Thank you,
>Jennifer
ut and I will pass your letter on to the
uled meeting this Thursday night at 7:00 pm.
if you have further concerns or questions.
>Jennifer Reeves
>Staff Planner
>City of College Station
>jreeves@cstx.gov
>(979) 764-3570
>(979) 764-3496 FAX
> »> "Pamela Polozeck" <bnzmom@hotmail.com> 09/12/05 10:17 AM »>
>Ms. Reeves,
>Please consider this email an opinion on the proposed rezoning of the
>Morgan
>Rector League A-45 in College Station, Texas.
>I am, along with many residents in the Raintree subdivision, opposed to the
• >rezoning of the tract for the simple reason that I do not wish to have
>increased traffic in the subdivision. Rezoning and development of that
>tract will mean an alternate intrance via Raintree Drive and I specifically
>picked out this subdivision because there was no thru traffic.
>I love College Station and everything about it. The people, the community,
>the spirit. However I believe that if we don't voice our opinions and
>compromises made on both sides that College Station will in fact lose some
>of its ideallic charm.
>I will attend the meetings in September and October, and hope that the
>committee rules favorably for the concerned citizens of the Raintree
>subdivision.
>Regards,
>Pamela Polozeck
>2507 Sumter
>College Station, TX 77845
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today -it's FREE!
>http://messenger. msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471 ave/direct/01 /
• >College Station. Heart of the Research Valley.
~a~~~~
Jennifer Reeves - Re: Raintree Extension ~ _ - - - Pa e 1
• From: Jennifer Reeves
To: Judy
Date: 8/30/2005 11:53:08 AM
Subject: Re: Raintree Extension
Good morning -Thank you for emailing me your questions. The City has received a rezoning application
to rezone approximately 48 acres of the Fojtik tract which is located just north of North Forest Parkway
and just east of HWY.6 behind St.Thomas Aquinas Church. The zone request would be to rezone from
the current zoning which is A-O Agricultural Open to R-1 Single Family which would be in compliance with
the City's Comprehensive Plan/Land Use Plan (adopted by City Council). The proposal is for a future
development of a single family neighborhood, not multi-family (like apartment or duplex). Steve Arden is
the applicant/developer. The subdivision would not be an addition the Raintree subdivision, this would be a
new subdivision with it's own name and I believe the main entrance would be off of North Forest Parkway.
There is also Master Plan being proposed for this development that does show Raintree Drive connecting
with this development. Raintree Drive is being shown on the City's adopted Thoroughfare Plan to connect
to Northforest Parkway.
The Planning and Zoning Meeting is scheduled for September 15th at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers
at City Hall. The Rezoning is scheduled for a public hearing, however the Master Plan is not scheduled for
a public hearing but it is on the regular agenda for the Commission to take action on.
I hope I have answered all of your questions. Please feel free to contact me by phone or by email if I can
assist you any further.
Thank you again,
Jennifer
• Jennifer Reeves
Staff Planner
City of College Station
jreeves@cstx.gov
(979) 764-3570
(979) 764-3496 FAX
»> Judy <judy@brazosbounty.com> 08/30/05 9:59 AM »>
Dear Jennifer,
We are homeowners in Raintree Subdivision. Yesterday we were made aware
of a proposed extension of Raintree Drive to enable developers to build
new housing. We, of course, have questions: What type of housing is
proposed? Single family? Apartments? Who are the developers? Would
the construction be an addition to the Raintree Subdivision or would a
new subdivision be developed? What actual property is being considered
for development? We are just full of questions, aren't we? We await
your a-mail reply since time seems to be important, or please call us at
the number listed below. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Judy McFarland & Rick Heaney
2511 Merrimac Ct.
College Station, TX 77845
• (979) 694-2145
-- ,~ ~` _ ~ Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Reeves - P&Z Raintree
• "
"
From: <bskillman bcsea les.or >
Barbara Skillman
@ g g
To: <jreeves@cstx.gov>
Date: 8/30/2005 4:14 PM
Subject: P&Z Raintree
I live in Raintree on Red Hill Drive. I do not want to allow P&Z to approve access to neighboring
developments through Raintree development.
Cla.rrica! Chrirtiau education promoting truth, U~irdorn, and virtue.
lyarbara Skillman
t3raros Christian School
3000 Wcst Villa Maria
Bryan,l'X 77807
979-823-1000
979-823-1774 (fax)
bskillman~bcsca leg 's•org
eww.bcscaglcsorg
C
•
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jreeves\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 8/30/2005
Jennifer Reeves - Zonin Chan e - Northx`~ ~'~~st Parkway _ Pa e' 1 ,
• From: "Eddie Rossi" <eddie@recind.com>
To: <jreeves@cstx.gov>
Date: 8/30/2005 3:35:32 PM
Subject: Zoning Change -North Forest Parkway
Jennifer,
Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this morning regarding the
notification of zoning changes along North Forest Parkway. I appreciate the
information you were able to share and enlightening me to the current
situation. As we discussed, I do not have a problem with the zoning change
itself. I do have concerns regarding opening Raintree Drive to through
traffic.
As we discussed, the Raintree Neighborhood is a family oriented
neighborhood. There is one way in and one way out. Due to this
configuration, the street traffic is limited. Children ride their bikes and
pull their wagons along Raintree Drive. People walk their dogs, jog or take
their morning or evening stroll along Raintree Drive. Currently the only
sidewalk along Raintree Drive is on one side of the street. It goes from the
entrance to the neighborhood to approximately one block south of Raintree
Park. There are no other sidewalks. I have lived in the Raintree
neighboghood since April 1993. I have enjoyed the quality of life in this
neighborhood. I believe by opening Raintree Drive, the quality of life will
only be lessened. Over the years Raintree has had its annual Fourth of July
parade for the residents of Raintree. The parade proceeds down Raintree
Drive from Sumpter to Raintree Park every year. If this road becomes a
• through way, I feel this parade will no longer be able to occur. Loosing
this tradition will only hurt the quality of life in our neighborhood. Also,
during Halloween, Raintree is a busy place with children going house to
house trick or treating. By opening up Raintree, you will be allowing more
traffic into the neighborhood, exposing the children to more vehicular
traffic than is currently experienced. Crime in Raintree is relatively
limited. I believe with a limited means of access to the neighborhood, the
criminal element for the most part stays out of Raintree due to lack of
convenient escape.
I understand the Master Plan calls for Raintree Drive to be a through street
at some point in time. However, I do not believe the time is now. I
understand that the area affected by the zoning change requires multiple
access. I feel this access may be obtained by multiple entrances along North
Forest Parkway and not through Raintree.
I thank you for your time and consideration to this matter. We will be
looking forward to the final outcome of this matter.
Respectfully,
Edward J. Rossi
8201 Raintree Drive
College Station, Texas 77845
979-764-7728
•
.} Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Reeves -Raintree
• From: "Lori Benham" <kiru ljh@hotmail.com>
To: <jreeves@cstx.gov>
Date: 8/29/2005 9:19 PM
Subject: Raintree
Ms. Reeves,
I am writing in concern to the new development that will greatly impact the Raintree neighborhood.
We are fairly new homeowners to the area. One of the biggest reasons why we chose this cozy little area
is because it's safe. It's quiet. It's low traffic. While we were house hunting, our gauge (to judge a
house/neighborhood) was: would I be safe walking in this neighborhood, pregnant. Raintree is a big
YES, as of right now. My husband and I were just saying yesterday how we loved our little secret
pocket of a sub division.
We are asking you to please do NOT do this to us.
Thank you for your time,
Lori Benham
2607 Vicksburg Ct.
•
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jreeves\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 8/30/2005
Jennifer Reeves -Raintree extention... ~ - . ; Pa e 1
• From: "Bobby Kimball" <waxdriver@hotmail.com>
To: <jreeves~cstx.gov>
Date: 8/29/2005 8:54:08 PM
Subject: Raintree extention...
I am against opening up the raintree subdivision into the proposed new
subdivision south of us leading into the emerald forest area...we like the
fact that raintree is somewhat secluded...we have families that I feel will
lose the safety for our children to play in the neighborhood...we don't want
and certainly don't need the additional traffic...
all I have ever heard is that the council wants to maintain the integrity of
our neighborhoods..../ understand growth...but it should not intertere with
the peace and tranquility of the long standing taxpayers of a
neighborhood...raintree is such a neighborhood....it is an area that still
looks like a Normen Rockwell painting each and every afternoon....we don't
want another busy roadway...we have plenty in the area...we bought our home
in this area for that very reason...no thru traffic...
I understand you guys have a hard job in making the decisions for the growth
of the city....let these developers go south of town....that is my
vote...and it will be reflected at election time as well...
Thank you very much for your time...
Robert M Kimball III
2509 Savannah
College Station Tx
• 77845
979-680-1527
•
` ~ Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Reeves -extending raintree drive
• From: "The Davis"' <traebohn tconline.net>
To: <jreeves@cstx.gov>
Date: 8/29/2005 7:50 PM
Subject: extending raintree drive
Mrs. Reeves,
I am emailing you as a resident of the Raintree subdivision concerned about the recent discussions of
extending Raintree Dr. I would not like to see Raintree Dr. extended in any way. I believe this would increase
traffic and endanger lives of young children unnecessarily.
Thank you,
Trae Davis
2604 Ashley Ct.
College Station, Tx. 77845
•
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jreeves\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 8/30/2005
"'~ ~~~ Page 1 of 1
Jennifer Reeves -Leave Raintree Drive Closed
• From: <Rbuckbee aol.com>
To: <jreeves@cstx.gov>
Date: 8/29/2005 9:07 PM
Subject: Leave Raintree Drive Closed
Our family has lived in Raintree subdivision since 1985. We have enjoyed the fact that the subdivision has only
one way in and out. Crime has been almost nonexistent and traffic has been minimal compared to most areas of
the city. Until parents and landlords started buying property in the subdivision to house college students and
friends and friends of friends I feel that Raintree has been one of the best areas in this city to live. Our property
values are already in question due to the influx of college student housing in the subdivision. The addition of low
income housing tagged on to the end of the street will insure that property values go down.
The last attempt by the city to open Raintree was a plan to connect Appomattox from Winwood subdivision to
Emerald Forrest. This has not yet happened but I'm sure it still exists in some developers or the cities plans.
If a developer wants to build housing behind Raintree subdivision that's fine, just figure out a way to access it
without extending Raintree Drive. Keep Raintree a closed subdivision.
Thank You,
Bob Buckbee
2504 Savannah, CT.
Raintree Subdivision
College Station
•
•
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jreeves\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 8/30/2005
Jerinifer Reeves -Raintree Drive ~ "' , ,~- ---: Pa e 1
• From: " james hodges" <aggie91 @dellmail.com>
To: <jreeves@cstx.gov>
Date: 9/5/2005 10:46:19 PM
Subject: Raintree Drive
Dear Ms Reeves,
I ask that you please do not open up Raintree Drive to additional traffic. We moved to Raintree in October
and were dismayed to see how much traffic goes by our house. If you open it up to more traffic it will truly
be frightening to allow our children to walk to the park which is right next door. I ask you to please not
endanger our children.
Thank you,
James Hodges
2503 Raintree Drive
696-8914
Get your free email from http://www.dellmail.com
•
•
Jennifer Reeves -Raintree Subdivision ~ "'" -- "- Pa e 1
From: <ellaco@cox.net>
•
To: <jreeves@cstx.gov>
Date: 9/6/2005 4:44:03 PM
Subject: Raintree Subdivision
Dear Ms. Reeves,
We want to express our dismay at the idea that our subdivision may be opened up to hundreds of new
homes. We purchased our home on Calico Court because of the quiet and the beauty of the
neighborhood plus the greatest feeling of security we have had in our entire lives. We have only lived here
three months, this is our retirement home. We do not want to ever move again. The people here are
friendly, helpful and considerate.
Opening Raintree Dr. up will create a heavy and dangerous traffic situation. We have many children in the
neighborhood who ride their bikes everywhere, walk to and from bus stops, and play in the park in relative
safety. Young adults run and jog alone at dawn and dusk. Someone is always out walking a dog. The
crime rate in Raintree is practically nonexistent.
According to the classifieds, Bryan-College Station is overwhelmed by homes and condos for sale.
Overbuilding means that many homeowners are being hurt financially by the city to whom they pay taxes.
Not all development is good development especially when the developer is the only one with something to
gain. With so much land available, why destroy an established neighborhood which has the quality of life
the city has vowed to maintain?
We beseech the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council to deny this development and to ensure
that the residents do not have to fight this type of thing again.
• Respectfully,
Mr. & Mrs. Wm. B. Colvin
2602 Calico Court
695-6815
Please forward to the Planning & Zoning Board and the City Council.
•
~,~
s J
Jennifer Reeves - Raintree...
Page 1 of 1
•
From: <Hossie24@aol.com>
To: <jreeves@cstx.gov>
Date: 9/6/2005 10:03 PM
Subject: Raintree...
I just wanted to let you know that I strongly disagree with the proposal to use the Raintree neghborhood as an
entrance/exit for a new development. Please put my name in the "NO" column.
Mark A. Bane
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that
problem." Ronald Reagan 1985
•
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jreeves\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 9/7/2005
Page 1 of 1
a
Jennifer Reeves - Do not open Raintree Drive
• From: "Jo ce Johnson" <JOYCE449 eo le c.com>
Y @p p p
To: <jreeves@cstx.gov>
Date: 9/9/2005 1:35 PM
Subject: Do not open Raintree Drive
Dear Ms. Reeves,
Please add my name to the list of those opposed to opening Raintree Drive to allow new housing
development.
We live on Raintree Drive just across from the park and see all the children and adults who walk and play in the
area. The park is on a curve and we have a few people who come around that curve too fast. This problem will
increase if Raintree is no longer a dead end street. Surely there is another way for the developer to create
access to a new housing development.
VOTE AGAINST OPENING RAINTREE DRIVE TO THROUGH TRAFFIC.
Joyce Johnson
2508 Raintree Drive
979-693-5307
r~
•
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jreeves\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 9/9/2005
._ o.... .
Jenrnfer Reeves Raintree Dnve ~~ ~~ Pa e41
---~ -
• From:
To: Joanna Price <joannapprice@gmail.com>
<jreeves@cstx.gov>
Date: 9/11/2005 8:41:20 PM
Subject: Raintree Drive
To Whom It May Concern:
My husband and I, who own 2606 Calico Court, are against allowing
Raintree Drive to be opened to allow developers access to the street
from a new housing complex. We live in the Raintree area because it
is safe and we feel comfortable walking with our dog in the evenings.
If Raintree is opened to another housing complex, we feel that the
additional traffic will make our community undesirable and increase
the crime rate.
Sincerely,
Craig and Joanna Price
Address:
2606 Calico Court
College Station, TX 77845
•
•
Regular Agenda 9
Public hearing, presentation, discussion and
possible action on a Comprehensive Plan
.Amendment to amend the Land Use Plan for
450 Earl Rudder Freeway South and vicinity
from Floodplain and Streams to Regional
Retail. State Highway 6, the College Station
City Limits and University Drive East
delineate the area for consideration. Case #05-
164 (TF)
•
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Trey Fletcher, Sr. Planner Report Date: 09-26-2005
Email: tetcher@cstx.gov Meeting Date: 10-6-2005
Item: Public hearing, presentation, discussion and possible action on a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Plan for 450 Earl Rudder Freeway South and
vicinity from Floodplain and Streams to Regional Retail. State Highway 6, the College
Station City Limits and University Drive East delineate the area for consideration. (05-
164)
Item Summary: This item is for the consideration of an amendment to the
comprehensive Land Use Plan. The property owner is requesting to amend the land use
plan from Floodplain and Streams to Regional Retail for a portion of the property, and
the City of College Station is concurrently requesting to amend the plan in the vicinity
where General Commercial zoning is established and commercial development has
occurred or is anticipated. The property owner has obtained a fill permit from the City in
compliance with the City's drainage ordinance and policies for reclamation.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the request as presented, and
described as follows:
• Amend the portion of the subject tract as requested located at 450 Earl Rudder
• Freeway South from Floodplain and Streams to Regional Retail.
• Amend parcels to the south that are zoned C-1, General Commercial from
Floodplain and Streams to Regional Retail as shown.
Item Background: This Comprehensive Plan Amendment is being processed
concurrently with a related rezoning application from R-1 Single-family Residential to C-1
General Commercial. A portion of the parcel was filled years ago. This request and the
corresponding rezoning request only apply to the elevated portion of the parcel. The
remainder will retain its Floodplain and Streams designation as well as the R-1 Single-
family Residential zoning. The applicant has filed a Letter of Map Revision based on Fill
(LOMR-F) with FEMA and is under review.
Previous development pressures on this parcel have sought to rezone the entire parcel,
and not been successful. While Land Use Goal #5 states that College Station should
encourage development that is in harmony with the environment, only improving the
previously filled portion of the parcel satisfies this, as well as Goal #1. Land Use Goal #1
states that College Station should continue to provide and locate adequate amounts of
appropriately zoned land for all necessary types of land uses in an efficient, convenient,
harmonious, and ecologically sound manner.
Relationship to Strategic Plan:
Planning & Development: We will continue to promote swell-planned community.
Related Board Actions: N/A
C7
• Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body on the
question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council. The Commission
options are:
1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted;
2. Recommend denial;
3. Table indefinitely; or,
4. Defer action to a specified date.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial Map
3. Application
4. Infrastructure and Facilities
Budgetary and Financial Summary: N/A
NOTIFICATION:
•
Legal Notice Publication(s): -The Eagle; 9-20-2005 and 10-4-2005
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 10-6-2005
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 10-24-2005
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners within 200': 6
Response Received: One, from a Bryan resident was concerned about
flooding in the area.
C7
~
~ ~ ~, a
~,
~ ~
a~
~
• ao
~z
~a,
J
~
oW
r,
U
y1Py
~ Q
5
~~ ~
,~
Q,FQ
~`O~
~~
r
U
~~
6~
~
J
yqP
~V~
y `t~
y~PtE
~ /^
W
' ~
,
U ,e,^^
Y/
O
W
~ m U
N
Q ~ Y
U r+
H 1 ~
~
/
.
a ~ ,
~ ~ D~~d ,.
f
~
.
..
'• O
~
a
J~O~P~a~~P •
. U j ~ ' o
,tkp~~~
a
' Q ~ a
~o~~
6
,y ~
' U
a W
Ear
~ Y
~ o
• ~P
e ~ a
' m m
~ O
~
~f
~s Q
~~~o ~
~~
J
~ ~'
1 n
m
~J
G' ~ ~
'
'
CJ N
' ~
Q ~ P
0 r O
O \~
S
C] ~
h ~
N W
O
0 O
r b
A
r N ~
~
L
'" r~ „
f Z
'tiy m~°°
N W
N
r r
'pgFtK ~yp~ ' ~ q a o
N
C
G
m w FN-~GP 0
flflfl
O ~ N
m ~ ~
~ J
W
~ W
M
~/~'~
L7 N ® V ~
~
~
a ~
~~
en ~ N J+Y oZ
N N mN
/
'-
Y •
N
Z '~" ~i ~ ~
N ~
Y
NY
K ~ ~
m U
S
VO
m , ^
~
2 0
L ~
B N
Y
•
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning d Deve%pment Services
F ~FF E U E ONLY
Case No.
Date Submitted
'~`~
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION
(Check all applicable) ^ Land Use Amendment ^ Thoroughfare Amendment ~'
^ alignment /location
^ classification
The following items must be submitted by the established deadline dates for consideration:
•
o Two (2) copies of a fully dimensioned map on 24"X36" 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
^ General location and address of property;
^ Total acres of property; and
^ All applicable Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request form(s) completed in full.
The following information must be completed before an application is accepted for review.
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
(if different from owner, a complete affidavit shall be required)
Name: Don Lamar. Trustee E-mail:
Street Address: 3709 Sunnvbrook Lane
City: Bryan State: TX Zip Code: 77802
Phone Number: Fax Number: (281) 497-0905
r
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
C~
Name: Same as Applicant E-mail:
Street Address:
City: State: Zip Code:
Phone Number: Fax Number:
i
• COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM
The following is required if an amendment to the Land Use Plan is requested. Based on the nature and
extent of the requested amendment, additional studies may be required. Attach additional sheets if
necessary.
Current Land Use Plan designation: Fooodplain and streams
Requested Land Use Plan designation: Retail Regional
Explain the reason for this Land Use Plan amendment: The floodplain in the area has been
partially reclaimed. The Land Use Plan amendment will change the plan designation on all
reclaimed land that is developable in the Gateway Center.
Identify what conditions have changed to warrant a change in the land use plan designation:
The property was filled years ago for development and because floodplain elevations rose
overtime it is now shown in the floodplain. However, it is currently in the process of being fully
• reclaimed.
How does the requested land use designation further the goals and objectives of the City of
College Station Comprehensive Plan? It is consistent with the existing zoning designations on
the Gateway Center and the subject property that was partially reclaimed years ago. The area
now shown on the plan amendment as regional retail is the area that has been or is currently
being reclaimed for development. A portion of the plan amendment is off the Lamar properiv
however, it is consistent with the existing zoning and manner in which it has been developed
1Horne Depot & Gateway Subdivision).
Explain why the requested land use designation is more appropriate than the existing
• designation. The property was reclaimed nears ago, but because floodplain elevations
increased the ad site was just below the Base Floodplain Elevation when the Land Use Plan
was completed.
•
The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached
hereto are true and correct
Signature and Title Date
•
•
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST FORM
• The following is required if an amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan is requested. Based on the nature
and extent of the requested amendment, additional studies may be required. Attach additional sheets if
necessary.
Current Thoroughfare Plan alignment and classification: N/A
Requested Thoroughfare Plan alignment and classification: N!A
Explain the reason for this Thoroughfare Plan amendment: N/A
Identify what conditions have changed to warrant a change to the alignment and/or classification
as shown on the existing thoroughfare plan. N/A
• How does the re uested thorou hfare amendment further the oals and ob'ectives of the Cit of
q 9 9 1 Y
College Station Comprehensive Plan? N/A
Explain why the requested thoroughfare plan change is more appropriate than the existing plan.
N/A
Explain differences in the traffic impacts between the existing thoroughfare plan and the
requested change to the thoroughfare plan. N/A
The applicarrt has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached
hereto are true and correct.
•
Signature and Title Date
Regular Agenda 10
Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and
possible action on a Rezoning for a portion of
a tract of land consisting affecting 4.435 acres
generally located at 450 Earl Rudder Freeway
South approximately 1500 north of the SH
6/University Drive intersection along the
southbound frontage road from R-1, Single-
family Residential to C-1, General
Commercial. Case #05-160 (TF/JN)
• STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Trey Fletcher, Sr. Planner Report Date: 9-26-2005
Email: tletcher@cstx.gov Meeting Date: 10-6-2005
Item: Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action on a
Rezoning for a portion of a tract of land affecting 4.435 acres generally located at
450 Earl Rudder Freeway South approximately 1500 north of the SH 6/University
Drive intersection along the southbound frontage road from R-1, Single-family
Residential to C-1, General Commercial. (05-160)
Applicant: Mitchell And Morgan, agent for Don Lamar, Trustee
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning as
requested based on a positive recommendation regarding the Land Use Plan
amendment request.
Item Summary: The applicant is proposing to rezone a portion of a 10 acre tract
that will be reclaimed from the floodplain. Of the remaining acreage, 4.47 acres
will retain the R-1 zoning, and 1.08 acres are in the City of Bryan, and zoned C.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Comprehensive Plan shows this
• area to be designated as Floodplain and Streams. The applicant has applied for
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the plan to Regional Retail in
support of the rezoning request. If the Commission and Council recommend for,
or approve the amendment, this request will be in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
This area is not shown as a priority area on the Greenways Master Plan.
Item Background:
The subject property was annexed in 1971 and zoned R-1, Single-family
Residential at that time. It is not platted, and the tract extends into the City of
Bryan Limits. Some filling has occurred on the property but the required Base
Flood Elevations have increased requiring additional fill.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: N/A
Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body
on the question of rezoning, which will be ultimately decided by City Council.
The Commission options are:
1. Recommend approval of rezoning as submitted;
2. Recommend denial;
3. Table indefinitely; or,
4. Defer action to a specified date.
•
P: I GRO UPW TLTRI PZLTRI PRODI PZ20051 P0011772. DOC
Created on 9/26/2005 8:48 AM
• Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map
2. Aenal Map
3. Application
4. Infrastructure and Facilities
•
•
P:IGROUPIHTLTRIPZLTRIPRODIPZ20051P0011772. DOC
Created on 9/26/2005 8:48 AM
i•
~~ . ~, ~,.
' d V
Q ~'' %~ ~^~ Q Q N o
~ '~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~
00 ~ o Z
~, o ~
0 0 ~ z
o ~ ~, o
N a ~" N
by
~~
V
~l~
P~~
e~
~'~~~,
i•
•
Z ~-Q
~\ CO
o~
yy ~
~P
~
~~~ O
P
~~ r
~
r J~
~ - N
~,, U
• ~~
6
~1
~
~
t
y~P ~+ I- -l
r
1 N
U
W
~ ~ "
Y
'"
~
m
~ Y
~ ~ ~• ~^~,
a 9
~
Y o m" ~ Z YID ~ W
Y ~~ 0
^
U ~ ~ sd~ c N
I
.
L
O
P ~ m ?7 P ~^
1
{.i.
FP`6~
p
o~~ '~ 2
v ~ LL
Jo
O
~Q' a G
FSp
O~~~ N
Q
a
~~6 ~
x ~
tYj K
O Q N
~SP~E ~ p
m m
~Q
W
~O ~
~1
fs~
~
~~, ~
,OJ ~ Z
'
a W
~'
a j
°°
~~
' ' W
~
o
I...,
~ _
~' ~ ~
"'
~ Z
W
Q p '
0
m b 0'
00 0 ~ ~^ p
4 O
J
~
~ a ~
o ~~ W
^ W
C " ~
O
/f ~
v .(J p
~
• N ~
'~ O~ p p
" ~
7 ~
~
+ ~
'PPRK ~ ~' o p ~ "
o
° p Fµ~GFt e h
nnnnnn
u ~ ~ "
O ' y
/1/l
~:/~/ N
4
N v
w ^
\CJ/ .
' _ O
~
~ ~ O
" ® ~ '`
Sep 05 05 10:40a 1 t
vat ua. cuv:a iv: ~a rM afi1LOY0a0~~ 1
•
CITY OF COttEGE STA?ION
au~.,~l d~a~~.Mrs,n~
111'1'(:HFSLL &3Rd MORGAN
ZONtNC3 MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING) APPLICATION
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT
If a petition fbr rezoning is denied by the City Council, another appscatlon sior rezoning shag not be filed within
a period of 180 days from the date of denial. eoacepl with permission dt11e Planning ib ZaMng Commission or
City Council. The togowing items must be submitted by en established tiling dbadBne date for conslderalion:
X Application corwpietsd in full.
X $500,00 appliccaatlon tee
X Two (2) copies of a fully dimensioned map on 24"x36' paper showing;
a. Land afTecled•
b. Legal desalptton of area of proposed change;
c. Pneaenl zoning;
d. Zoning dassiRcatlon of all abuttfig land; and
e. Aft pubUc and prhrale rights-of-way and easements bounding and brlersectlng subject land.
~C Wltten legal description of subject property (metes i!i bounds or lot i~ block of subdivision, whichever i
appllcat4e).
X The liezoning Supporting lniormation sheet completed in ftult. A CAD (dxfldwg) or GIS (shp) dig~al fi
maybe roqutred for moro complex rezontna naauests_
oats on Requuea PreappncatioR conference: / y D ~ ~{- ~ J
APPLICANT'S INFORMATION:
• Name ~llilcheg S jNorgen l1P Veronica Momanl
Street Address 511 University Drive East, Suite 204
City College Station Stale TX _ Zip Code _77840_
E Mail Address v~mRcheilandmorgan.com
Phone Number (979) 260-6963 Fax Numt>er_(979) 26D-35B4
PROPERTY OWNER'S #NFORMATION:
Name Oon LamaE, Trustee
Street Addross 3709 SunnvBrook ls. City ~
State -~ ~P ~~ 77802 E-Malt Address ___
Phone Number Fax Nurnber_(281)497-0605
This properly was wnveyed to owner by deed daMd and recorded in Vatume 579,
Page 319 otihe Brazos County Deed Rer~rds.
t3eneral Location of Property; Approx 1500' north of SHti/ University Drive intersection vn SH6 southbound
frontage road.
Address of Property:_unknown
Legal Oescription: A000801 R CARTER (ICL), TRACT 36, ACRE510.00
Acreage -Total Property: _10.00
Existing Zoning: R-1 Prr~posed zoning: A-0 i~ C-1
Presets Use of Prnpsrty ~vacard
~ro~osed Use of Pr+aperty _rastauraMs, retail
~ o
•
z }
p.1
i~002/003
POIi O ! ICE U E ONLY
CAeE NO v
QJII'E StregMR7~D
q-~~
Sep 05 05 10:41 a ~ ~ l ~ ~, p•2
~o/VL/LVVJ t.r.JJ rna sra~vtrvav~ Ai'ltitlL''LL SI1Q muKCen 1~o03io03
• REZONINQ SUPPORTING INFQRIiAA710N
t .) List the changed or changing conditions in the area or in the City which make this zone change necessary.
The property i= currently zoned R-1 and is NOT in compliance wi#h the citys land use plan. Changing this
to G1 witl allow thls property to be incorporated with the adjacent G1 properties and will be a Iogicat extension
of the retail uses already In existence.
2.) Indicate whether ar nil this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. If K is nat.
explain why the Plan Is incorrect.
This property is shown as retail and tioodptain or` the Comprehensive Pian. A podion of this trail is being
reclaimed from the tloodplain and will be designated as (:-1. The remainder which is low ying Aoodplaln w11 be
designated as A-0, Agricuitrir~e- Open for preservation.
3.) list any other reasons to support this zone change.
in looking at all the land uses available Tor thistrect, rBfait regional appears to be the most logical. Residential
would bean inappropriate adjacent use to the e~dsting retail. The rezoning request would merely extend the exsting
retail uses onto tfie available rec~irnable land.
The applicant has prepared this application and supporting information and oer'e~lies that the facts
stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are tnae and oomeet !F APPLICATION /S FfLED BY
ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE
• ACCOMPANIED BYA POWER OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER.
~~
Signature of owner (or agent] or applicant
g1~ ~ ~,
Date
~~~~ Papo 2 of Z
•
• INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: A 6" water line was extended to the property by the Home
Depot project. Larger water lines (12") are available to the south.
Sewer: A sewer main exists along the property boundary.
Streets: SH 6 (Earl Rudder Freeway) is classified as a Freeway on the
City's Thoroughfare Plan.
Off-site Easements: None are known to be necessary at this time. A
sewer easement abandonment request is currently being processed.
Drainage: Drainage is to Burton Creek to the north.
Floodplain: The entire parcel is within the Special Flood Hazard Area.
Oversize request: None
Impact Fees: None
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 9-20-2005 and 10-4-2005
• Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 10-6-2005
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 10-24-2005
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners within 200': 6
Response Received: One, from a Bryan resident was concerned about
flooding in the area.
U
P:IGROUPWTLTRIPZLTRIPRODIPZ20051P0011772. DOC
Created on 9/26/2005 8:48 AM
•
7.1 Landscaping and Tree Protection
A. Purpose and Intent
The purpose and intent of this Section is to regulate the manner in
which land in the City is used and developed, to minimize adverse
effects on surrounding property owners or the general public, and
ensure that high quality development is maintained throughout the
community.
For the purpose of landscaping, College Station, Texas falls within Zone
8 of the USDA Hardiness Zone Map. Dwarf plants will not be allowed in
required screening or buffer areas.
B. Application of Section
•
•
The landscaping requirements of this Section apply to ail land located in
the City of College Station proposed for site development with the
exception of those zoned NG-1, NG-2, and NG-3. The requirements also
do not apply to single-family, duplex, or townhouse uses, except as
follows:
i. The requirements of this Section have limited application to properties
developed for duplexes, as follows:
a.A minimum of 200 points of landscaping as calculated in this
Section shall be provided for each new duplex unit.
b.Where parking is provided in the front yard, an eight-foot
landscaped setback shall be required between the property line
and the nearest side of the parking pad. This eight-foot
setback area must be landscaped and contain athree-foot high
screen consisting of a continuous berm, hedge, or wall. In
addition, an eight-foot landscaped setback shall be required
between the dwelling unit and the nearest side of the parking
pad.
c. The maintenance and completion requirements of this Section
also apply to duplex uses. Every development must employ an
irrigation system. All new plantings must be irrigated. An
irrigation system shall be designed so that it does not
negatively impact existing trees and natural areas. Soaker
hose and drip irrigation system designs may be permitted as
the Administrator deems appropriate. All plantings must be in
accordance with the College Station Plant List, or as deemed
appropriate by the USDA for Zone 8 in their Hardiness Zone
Map. The plant list is approved and amended as needed by the
Administrator.
2. The landscaping requirements of this Section shall apply to
manufactured home parks, but not to individual manufactured
homes on separate lots.
3. All landscaping/streetscaping requirements under this Section shall
run with the land once the development has begun and shall apply
against any owner or subsequent owner.
4. The landscaping requirements of this Section apply to ail unsubdivided
property, improved subdivided lots other than single-family,
. duplex, or townhouse lots, and to other improved lands where
buildings or structures are being added or replaced within the City.
5. Each phase of a multi-phase project shall comply with this Section.
6. All plantings must be in accordance with the College Station Plant List,
or as deemed appropriate by the USDA for Zone 8 in their
Hardiness Zone Map. The plant list is approved and amended as
needed by the Administrator.
C. Landscaping Requirements
1. The landscaping requirements shall be determined on a point basis by
the following:
a.Landscape Points required: 30 points per 1,000 square feet of
site area;
b.The minimum number of points for any development is 800
points;
c. Undeveloped floodplains may be removed from site size
calculations; however, existing trees within that floodplain shall
not be claimed for points; and
d.Projects may be phased with the phase lines being drawn 20 feet
beyond any new site amenity. The portion left for subsequent
phases shall be of developable size and quality.
2. Point values will be awarded for any type of canopy tree, non-canopy
• tree, or shrub, provided that the species claimed for point credit
are not listed on the Non-Point Tree List as prepared by the
Administrator. All caliper measurements shall be 12 inches above
grade.
a.Landscaping points are accrued as follows:
•
•
•
Plant Material Points • •
Accrued
er Plant .
Installed Size Caliper
(Inches)
75 1.5 to 2
Canopy Tree 150 2.1 to 3.4
300 3.5 and lar er
Non-cano Tree 40 1.25 and lar er
Shrubs 10 Min. S allon*
~~istiri .Tre'e$,~Witl1,,$.ii ~° ~. ect~=., tea~~',~ ~~ _~~_
Canopy Tree 40 4 to 14.5
Non-cano Tree 35 2 and lar er
Existitl 'TreesVl%ithin Barricade°Protectfon Area' `-
300 Between 4 and 8
Canopy Tree
400
8 and larger
150 Between 2 and 4
Non-canopy Tree
200
4 and larger
* Shrubs not used for screening may be a minimum of 1 gallon in size and accrue 1 point
per plant.
b.To receive landscape points for existing trees, all existing trees
must be in good form and condition and reasonably free of
damage by insects and/or disease.
c. To receive barricaded points for existing trees, they must be
barricaded one foot per caliper inch. A barricade detail must be
provided on the landscape plan. Barricades must be in place
prior to any activity on the property including, but not limited
to, grading. If in any event the required barricades are not in
place prior to any activity and maintained during construction,
barricaded points will be forfeited.
3.One hundred percent coverage of groundcover, decorative paving,
decorative rock, or a perennial grass is required in parking lot
islands, swales and drainage areas, and the parking lot setback
unless otherwise landscaped or existing plants are preserved. One
hundred percent coverage of groundcover or perennial grass is also
required in all unpaved portions of street or highway right-of-way
or on adjacent property that has been disturbed during
construction. If grass is to be used for groundcover, 100% live
grass groundcover is required whether by solid sod overlay or pre-
planting and successful takeover of grasses. No point value shall
be awarded for ground cover.
Per Ordinance No. 2753 dated September 23, 2004
4. Every project must expend a minimum of 50% of its point total on
• canopy trees.
5. For existing plantings, the Administrator may require a health
appraisal.
• 6. All new plantings must be irrigated. An irrigation system shall be
designed so that it does not negatively impact existing trees and
natural areas. Soaker hose and drip irrigation system designs may
be permitted as the Administrator deems appropriate.
•
•
7. Additional Point Credits
a.A 10 percent point credit will be awarded where the irrigation
system employed is a recognized water-conserving system.
b.A 10 percent point credit will be awarded if 25 percent or more of
parking area consists of enhanced paving.
c.A 10 percent point credit will be awarded for every one percent
of site area devoted to special facilities including water
features, public art, or other public features determined by the
Administrator.
8. All landscape materials shall be installed in accordance with the
current planting procedures established by the most recent
addition of The American Standard for Nursery Stock, as published
by the American Association of Nurserymen.
9. Landscaping must be reasonably dispersed throughout all visible
areas of the site.
D. Streetscape Requirements
1. The streetscaping requirements shall be determined along all major
arterials, freeways, and expressways by the following:
a.Within 50 feet of the property line along the street, one canopy
tree for every 25 linear feet of frontage shall be installed. Two
non-canopy trees may be substituted for each one canopy tree.
b.Canopy and non-canopy trees must be selected from the College
Station Streetscape Plant List and may be grouped as desired.
c.One existing tree (minimum four-inch caliper) may be
substituted for a new tree. Existing trees must be of
acceptable health, as determined by the Administrator.
2. The streetscaping requirements shall be determined along all other
roadways by the following:
a.Within 50 feet of the property line along the street, one canopy
tree for every 32 feet of frontage shall be installed. Two non-
canopy trees may be substituted for one canopy tree.
b.Canopy and non-canopy trees must be selected from the
Administrator's Streetscape Plant List and may be grouped as
desired.
c.One existing tree (minimum four-inch caliper) may be
substituted for a new tree. Existing trees must be of
acceptable health, as determined by the Administrator.
3. Three hundred additional landscape points shall be required for every
50 linear feet of frontage on a right-of-way. Driveway openings,
visibility triangles, and other traffic control areas may be
subtracted from total frontage. The additional landscape points
can be dispersed throughout the site.
4. Driveways and areas located within a required visibility triangle shall
be excluded from the Streetscape requirements in paragraphs 1, 2,
and 3 above.
• 5. Parking areas adjacent to a right-of-way shall be screened from the
right-of-way. Screening is required along 100 percent of the street
frontage (such as 10 shrubs for every 30 linear feet of frontage),
with the exception of areas within the visibility triangle. Screening
may be accomplished using plantings, berms, structural elements,
or combinations thereof, and must be a minimum of three feet
above the parking lot pavement elevation. Walls and planting
strips shall be located at least two feet from any parking area.
Where the street and the adjacent site are at different elevations,
the Administrator may alter the height of the screening to ensure
adequate screening. Fifty percent of all shrubs used for screening
shall be evergreen.
6. Dumpsters, concrete retaining walls where more than six vertical
inches of untreated concrete are visible, off-street loading areas,
utility connections, and any other site characteristics that could be
considered visually offensive must be adequately screened.
E. Landscape/Streetscape Plan Requirements
When aLandscape/Streetscape Plan is required, the
landscape/streetscape plan shall contain the following:
a.The location of existing property lines and dimensions of the
tract.
b.A north arrow and scale.
c. Topographic information and final grading adequate to identify
and properly specify planting for areas needing slope
protection.
• d. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structures,
parking lots and drives, sidewalks, refuse disposal areas,
fences, and other features as determined necessary by the
Administrator.
e. Location, size, spread, type, and quantity of all proposed
landscaping and screening materials, along with common and
botanical names.
f. The location of existing and proposed utilities and all easements
on or adjacent to the lot.
g.An indication of adjacent land uses, existing development and
roadways.
h.An irrigation system plan or a general note indicating that an
irrigation system to service all new plantings will be installed by
a certified installer before a certificate of occupancy will be
issued.
i. Landscape information
(1) Landscape points required for site and calculations
shown in the landscape legend;
(2) A legend showing the size, type (canopy, non-canopy,
shrub) and points claimed for proposed landscaping; and
(3) Location of landscape plants on plan identified by a
symbol defined in a landscape legend (see sample
legend below).
•
C7
•
City of College Station
SAMPLE LEGEND
LANDSCAPING POINT CALCULATIONS
NAME POINT
SYMBOL S17F & TYPE QUANTITY VALUE POINT
8" ANO LARGER
EXISTING
LIVE OAK TREE
2
300
800
J
c ~ / W/BARRICADE (Ouercua Virpiniana)
Canopytros
v U
/~
/ Q
\
4" TO 8"
EXISTING
W/BARRICADE
LIVE OAK TREE ~
(quartos Virpmiana)
C
G
13
200
2600
\ anopy
ee
C~~- ~
J 2" TO 14.5"
CALIPER
LIVE OAK TREE
(Ousreus Vi
iniana)
tl
35
260
~/ EXISTING
W/O BARRICAD ry
Canopy Gse
1.25" CALIPER
AND LARGER TREE CREPE MYRTLE
(LaOerotroemfa Indies)
Non-canopy troe 6
(NEW) 40 2qp
5 GAL WAX LEAF LIGU3TRUM (NEB 10 480
(LipusWm texanum)
Shrub
IgTE: 6yrb"Y "n M Mrwo. AM T.LoY
"MOII"IM W ie~tiW Mre.nY
BARRICADE FOR INDICATED TREES TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH 48"HIGH ORANGE PLASTIC CONSTRUCTION
NETTING AND SECURED TO STEEL T-POSTS. BARRICADE TO BE PLACED IN A CIRCLE AROUND INDICATED
TREES A RADIAL DISTANCE OF 1' FOR EVERY 1"CALIPER OF TREE. BARRICADE MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR
TO ANY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY AS WELL AS THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.
STREETSCAPE:
(136.57' / 50) x 300 PTS = 820 PTS
(136.57' / 25) = 6 CANOPY TREES
POINTS PER PROJECT AREA:
26,416.3 SQUARE FEET OF SITE AREA
26,416.3 / 1,000 = 26.42
26.42 x 30 = 792.6 = 793 POINTS
TOTAL POINTS REQUIRED: 1,613 TOTAL POINTS PROPOSED: 4,180
j. Streetscape Information
(i) Streetscape points required for site and calculations
shown;
(2) A table showing the scientific and common plant names,
size, type (canopy, non-canopy, and shrub), and points
claimed for proposed streetscaping; and
(3) Location of streetscape plants on plan identified by a
symbol defined in a landscape legend (see sample
legend above).
• k.The location and diameter of protected existing trees claimed for
either landscape or streetscape requirements, and an indication
• of how the applicant plans to barricade the existing trees from
damage during construction. Barricading shall be subject to the
following requirements:
(1) Prior to land development or redevelopment, or any
construction thereof, the developer shall clearly mark all
qualifying and significant trees to be preserved;
(2) The developer shall erect a fence around each tree or
group of trees to prohibit the placement of debris or fill,
or the parking of vehicles within the drip line of any
qualifying or significant tree;
(3) During construction, the developer shall prohibit the
cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of
any tree or group of trees that are protected and
required to remain. The developer shall not allow to
dispose of any waste material such as, but not limited
to, paint, oil, solvents, asphalt, concrete, mortar, or
other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of
any tree or groups of trees that are required to remain;
(4) No attachments or wires of any kind shall be attached to
any tree, except those used to stabilize or protect such
tree;
(5) With grade changes in excess of six inches, a retaining
wall or tree well of rock or brick shall be constructed
around the tree not closer than one-half the distance
between the trunk and the drip line. The mid-point of
the retaining wall shall be constructed at the new grade.
Grade changes greater than one inch may not be made
without the prior approval of the Administrator; and,
(6) All vegetation must be planted in accordance with the
visibility triangle referenced in Section 7.1.C, Visibility at
Intersections in all Districts.
F. Maintenance and Changes
1. Landscaping/Streetscaping shall be maintained and preserved in
accordance with the approved Landscape/Streetscape Plan.
Replacement of landscaping/streetscaping must occur within 45
days of notification by the Administrator. Replacement material
must be of similar character and the same or higher point total as
the dead or removed landscaping. Failure to replace dead or
removed landscaping, as required by the Administrator, shall
constitute a violation of this Section of the UDO for which the
penalty provision may be invoked.
2. Landscaping/Streetscaping Changes to Existing Sites
a.If changes constituting 25 percent or more of the number of
canopy and non-canopy trees are proposed, a revised
Landscape/Streetscape Plan must be submitted for approval
and is required to comply with this Section. Planting must
occur pursuant to this approved landscape/streetscape plan
within 45 days.
b. Revised Landscape/Streetscape Plans shall meet the
requirements of the ordinance in effect at the time of the
revised Landscape/ Streetscape Plan submittal.
c. The replacement of existing canopy and non-canopy trees must
be replaced caliper for caliper, or as determined by the
Administrator.
•
•
G. Completion and Extension
The Administrator shall review all landscaping for completion in
compliance with this Section and the approved Landscape/Streetscape
Plan. Landscaping/ streetscaping shall be completed in compliance with
the approved plan before a Certificate of Occupancy will be issued.
However, the applicant may receive an extension of four months from the
date of the Certificate of Occupancy upon the approval of an application
for extension with a bond or letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent
of the landscape/streetscape bid, as well as the irrigation required for the
project. Failure to complete the landscaping/ streetscaping according to
the approved Landscape/Streetscape Plan at the expiration of the bond
or letter of credit shall constitute forfeiting the bond or cashing of the
letter of credit. Also, failure to complete the approved
landscaping/streetscaping shall constitute a violation of this UDO.
H. Review and Approval
Landscape/Streetscape Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Administrator.
I. Parking, Storage, or Display
No parking, storage, or display of vehicles or merchandise shall be
allowed in the required landscape/streetscape areas or on required
parking islands.
7. Alternative Compliance Permitted
• Variations to the requirements of this Section may be approved if the
landscape/streetscape plan is sealed by a registered landscape architect
and approved by the Administrator. Such plans must show reasonable
evidence that the requirements as set forth in this Section were used as a
guide.
7.2 Buffer Requirements
A. Purpose
The purpose of buffer requirements, which generally include a buffer
yard, plantings, and a fence or wall, is to provide a visual barrier between
different zoning districts and to help mitigate any negative impacts of
adjacent land uses on developed or developing properties. A buffer
should visibly separate one use from another and shield or block noise,
glares, or other nuisances.
B. Applicability
1. Perimeter buffers shall be provided on building plots abutting
developed (platted) or developing (in the process of platting) sites
in accordance with the standards of this Section, as outlined in
Section 7.6.F, Minimum Buffer Standards. The following shall
provide buffers:
a.Vacant sites that develop;
b.Existing sites when additions, expansions, and/or
redevelopments equal or are greater than 25% of the existing
• improvements;
• c. Existing sites when cumulative additions, expansions, and/or
redevelopments total 25% or more of the existing
improvements;
d.Existing sites when a change of use intensifies the development
in terms of elements such as traffic, processes, noise, water or
air pollution, etc.;
e.Existing sites with lawfully established non-conforming uses
when the use is expanded; and
f. Sexually-oriented businesses.
2. Exceptions to the terms of this Section will be made when:
a.The adjacent developed use is non-conforming;
b.The adjacent developed use is agricultural;
c. The Land Use Plan designates the area as Redevelopment;
d.The property is zoned P-MUD and the buffer requirement was
determined through the rezoning process; or
e. Properties in NG and RDD districts.
C. Relationship To Other Landscaping Standards
All buffer requirements shall be included on a development's Landscaping
Plan. Landscaping provided to meet the buffer landscaping standards of
this Section may not be counted towards meeting a project's landscape
point requirements. The area of a site dedicated to a perimeter buffer
• shall not be included in calculating a site's minimum landscaping point
requirements.
D. Location
The buffer shall abut property boundaries shared with less intense uses
or zoning districts as shown in Section 7.6.F, Minimum Buffer Standards.
In the event that a property abuts a less intense use and a less intense
zoning district, the more stringent buffer shall be required along the
shared boundary.
E. Permitted Uses
i.A buffer yard may be used for passive recreation or stormwater
management. It may contain pedestrian, bike, or equestrian trails
provided that:
a.No plant material is eliminated;
b.The total width of the buffer yard is maintained; and
c. All other regulations of this Section are met.
2. No active recreation area, storage of materials, parking, driveways, or
structures, except for approved pedestrian, bike or equestrian trails
and necessary utility boxes and equipment, shall be located within
the buffer yard.
3. Pedestrian access through a perimeter fence or wall and buffer yard
may be provided at the abutting resident's, homeowners
association's, or the Administrator's option to provide convenient
pedestrian access to nonresidential uses such as commercial areas
or schools.
• F. Minimum Buffer Standards
The buffer requirements are designed to permit and encourage flexibility
in the widths of buffer yards, the number of plants required in the buffer
yard, and opaque screens. Standard buffer requirements are depicted in
the table below.
•
•
1. Buffer Yards
a.Buffer yards shall be measured from the common property line
and may be located within established building setbacks.
b.Where utility or drainage easements or other similar situations
• exists in the required buffer yard, the buffer yard may be
reduced by the width of the easement; however, an additional
5 feet may be required beyond the width of the easement in
these situations to allow for the required plantings and fence or
wall. All new plantings and irrigation shall be located outside of
the easement. The Administrator has the discretion to allow a
required fence or wall within the easement.
2. Plantings
a.If a fence or wall is not required per the table above, the
following plantings shall be installed in the buffer yard:
Per Ordinance No. 2753 dated September 23, 2004
(1) A minimum of one 5-gallon shrub at a minimum of three
feet in height per three linear feet of landscaping buffer.
(2) A minimum of one 2-inch caliper canopy tree per 25
linear feet of landscape buffer.
b.If a fence or wall is required per the table above, the following
plantings shall be installed in the buffer yard:
Per Ordinance No. 2753 dated September 23, 2004
(1) A minimum of one 1.25-inch caliper non-canopy tree per
15 linear feet of landscaping buffer. The Administrator
may allow the substitution of a minimum of one 5-gallon
shrub at a minimum of three feet in height per three
linear feet of landscaping buffer for the non-canopy tree
requirement, or may require the substitution to mitigate
potential negative impacts of a development.
* Includes duplexes.
t Includes manufactured homes, mobile homes, manufactured home parks, and
townhouses.
[number] Depth of buffer yard
(1) Fence
(2) Wall
(2) A minimum of one 2-inch caliper canopy tree per 25
linear feet of landscape buffer.
c. All buffer yard landscaping areas not dedicated to trees or shrubs
shall be landscaped with grass, ground cover, or other
appropriate landscape treatment in accordance with Section
7.5.C.3, Landscaping and Tree Protection.
d.Fifty percent of all required shrubs within the buffer yard shall be
evergreen.
e. Plant materials shall show a variety of texture, color, shape, and
other characteristics. Recommended buffer materials can be
found in the College Station Plant List or in those listed as
appropriate for Zone 8 on the USDA Hardiness Zone Map.
f. The arrangement of trees and shrubs in the buffer area shall be
done in a manner that provides a visual separation between
abutting land uses. Shrubs shall be massed in rows or groups
to achieve the maximum screening effect.
g.Irrigation is required for all new plantings.
h.Existing vegetation may count toward the planting requirement
if:
(i) The vegetation is in good health and the landscaping
plan verifies that it will meet the plantings criteria listed
above (non-point trees may count towards a natural
buffer); and
• (2) The vegetation is protected in accordance with Section
7.5.C.2.c, Landscaping and Tree Protection, of this UDO.
i. Plantings will not be allowed to encroach into a required visibility
triangle for a public or private right-of-way except as provided
for in Section 7.1.C, Visibility at all Intersections in All Districts.
3. Fences and walls
a. Fences may be solid wood or solid wood accented by masonry,
stone, EFIS (Exterior Finish Insulation System), or concrete
columns. Walls may be masonry, stone, EFIS, concrete, or a
combination of these materials, and shall be finished on both
sides (framing not visible). Walls and masonry columns for
fences must meet the footing standards prescribed by the
Building Code for such structures.
Per Ordinance No. 2753 dated September 23, 2004
b.Fences and walls shall be a minimum of six feet in height and a
maximum of eight feet. Walls over six feet must obtain a
building permit. When the adjacent property and the buffer
yard are at different elevations, the Administrator may require
a greater fence or wall height to ensure adequate buffering.
c. Fences and walls shall be placed within one foot of the common
boundary line when physically possible. In the event that there
is a physical constraint that will not allow the construction of a
fence on the common boundary line (including, but not limited
to, the existence of a creek, access easement, or existing
vegetation), the Administrator may authorize an alternative
fence location.
d.Fences or walls will not be allowed to encroach into a required
visibility triangle for a public or private right-of-way.
4. Substitutions
a. Existing natural vegetation may be used in lieu of plantings and a
fence or wall under the following circumstances:
(1) The existing vegetation consists of canopy and non-
canopy trees which are shown through a tree survey to
meet the minimum buffer planting requirements (non-
point trees may be considered) and is of sufficient
density to provide 100 percent opacity to a height of six
feet; and
(2) The vegetation is protected in accordance with Section
7.5.C.2.c, Landscaping and Tree Protection, of this UDO.
b.Fences and walls may be substituted with a solid plant or hedge
wall that is greater than six feet in height with approximately
100 percent opacity. All shrubs planted for a hedge wall must
be a minimum of 15 gallons each. The solid plant or hedge wall
must be evergreen and may not be counted towards meeting
the buffer planting requirement.
c. Fences and walls may be substituted with a landscaped earthen
berm if the combination of berm and landscaping is not less
than six feet in height from the elevation at the property line
with approximately 100% opacity. The berm plantings must be
• evergreen and may not be counted towards meeting the buffer
planting requirement. Berms must be a minimum of four feet
in height with a maximum slope of 3:1. Berms in excess of six
feet in height shall have a maximum slope of 4:1 as measured
from the exterior property line.
d.The required height of fences or walls may be reduced if used in
combination with an earthen berm or a landscaped earthen
berm if the height of the screening is six feet from the elevation
at the property line with approximately 100 percent opacity.
The berm plantings must be evergreen and may not be counted
towards meeting the buffer planting requirement.
e.Walls may be substituted with fences if the required buffer yard
area and plantings are doubled.
Per Ordinance No. 2753 dated September 23, 2004
f. Walls and fences may be omitted if the required buffer yard area
and plantings are tripled.
Per Ordinance No. 2753 dated September 23, 2004
G. Maintenance and Replacement
1. Upon installation or protection of required landscape materials,
appropriate measures shall be taken to ensure their continued
health and maintenance. Required landscape areas and buffers
shall be free of garbage and trash, weeds, pests, and disease.
• Required plant materials that do not remain healthy shall be
replaced consistently with these provisions.
2. All landscaping materials and/or fences, walls, or berms shall be
maintained by the owner(s) of the property that was required to
install such landscaping materials and/or fences, walls, or berms
under this Section.
3. Any canopy tree removed or otherwise destroyed by the willful act or
negligence of the property owner, tenant, or contractor shall be
replaced by a tree of the same or larger caliper.
•
•
H. Appeals
i. Appeals of the terms of this Section, with the exception of Section G,
Maintenance and Replacement, shall be to the Design Review
Board (DRB).
2.An appeal shall be made within 30 days of the date of the notification
of the decision by filing with the Administrator a notice of appeal
specifying the grounds thereof.
3. The DRB may authorize on appeal alternative buffer standards for a
specific property or a waiver to the Buffer Requirements of this
Section when such standards or variance will not be contrary to the
public interest where, owing to unique and special conditions not
normally found in like areas, a strict enforcement of the provisions
of the ordinance by the Administrator would result in unnecessary
hardship, and so that the spirit of this Section shall be observed
and substantial justice done.
•
A
Jennifer Reeves -PLANNING & ZONING Pa e 1 `:
• From: <ellaco@cox.net>
To: <jreeves@cstx.gov>
Date: 10/6/2005 10:08:49 AM
Subject: PLANNING & ZONING
We vigorously oppose opening Raintree Dr. The supposition that it will not increase traffic is wrong.
Anyone coming home from the north and most of the west part of town will use Raintree. Why would they
drive past Raintree all the way to Emerald Pkwy. to make a u-turn back to N. Forest?
Raintree has a long curve that can be very dangerous when there are cars parked on both sides of the
street. On weekend nights, there are many cars parked on both sides of the street. I assume these are
student parties as it is always the same houses. There are many houses that face on Raintree so that
when they have guests, the guests must park on the street. This significantly reduces the roadway and
drivers have to be very careful.
I am unable to attend the Commission meeting but sincerely hope that you will read and consider our
concerns.
Ella L. Colvin
2602 Calico Court
695-6815
•
r~
Jennifer Reeves - P&Z - Thorou hfare at Raintree Pa e 1
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Cindy Dillard
Jennifer Reeves
10/6/2005 4:09:34 PM
P&Z -Thoroughfare at Raintree
Please pass my comments to the P&Z Board.
Good Evening Gentlemen,
Unfortunately I am unable to attend the meeting tonight. Please take a few minutes to review my
comments. Thank you for your time and attention.
1) Not one resident of Raintree has voiced approval of this thoroughfare plan. All the comments have
been against it. Previous e-mails, comments and petition. Please put the interests of MANY against that of
a few.
2)There are 27 homes facing Raintree, which doesn't sound like many unless your home is one of them.
Mr. Arden is not proposing to build homes facing Raintree because he knows they have less value, which
ours will if this thoroughfare plan is approved.
3) We have little or no crime because of limited access. Please check this with P.D.
4) Mr. Arden and the planners can find another access point for his development with out destroying a 25
year old established neighborhood, but of course this will cost him more.
5) Traffic is sometimes already dangerous when cars are parked on both sides of the curve. We are not
congested but will be if you vote for this thoroughfare plan.
6) Mr. Arden stated at the last P&Z that "everyone would like to live on a secluded cul-de-sac but that just
isn't possible." Well he lives on a cul-de-sac which he choose. The residents of Raintree ALSO CHOOSE.
I work full time and have 2 children and have not had time to gather more signatures against this plan. I
will have many more if and when this reaches City Council.
With all due respect, I implore you to protect all the residents of Raintree who you represent. Please vote
as if this were YOUR neighborhood and YOUR home.
Thank you once again for your time and attention to this very important matter.
Cindy Dillard
2511 Raintree Dr.
College Station TX 77845
•
• • •
C7
~ ~
~
d
~ 0
~
c
d
~
~
~ ~
~
° A
~
~ 0 3 ° ~ ~
° 0 ~ * o ~ ~D
Z
7 of ~ ? ~ D
~
a r
^
~ ~ ~ -v
p
~ a o- n A a to D
y O~ ~* ''* m a r+ -
N
O ~ -
~ a D -
D
~
~~ - N ~ y
a
~ t0
~~
~ ~ r0•r N Dl y
fD OAI lD d C A K A O' !
D d '~ (O 'fl rt ~ '~ ~ y Ol f'D fD G
7 ~
~
~
i
c
' 7 fD
d
~ -t fD
o
o C a X•
K p
j K
i
• v
~ ~
~
-• < a n
d ~~ f r
rt
'r O
3 ~
. " ~ o ~'
`
(D fn rt a o, a
~ y rt ~;
C
rt
QC Q~'O ~
O~ ~..r
~-P~ C
N
K Srtrt~(D C
S
S ~ N O O N
p al3D - i0 '~
~ '' O O p
n '~
<
-+ ~ (n ~• O? lD O N 7C
O O r
D
O
3 rt
p O O rt K
~ ~ PF
~.
, r~•
f
D
W
S ~ y vi _ y
Or '~ ,..r i O
N A "
~ N
~' O ~ ~ O ~
~ fD rt
d. ~ O
C ~p - O
lD S lD p
~, tD ~ O (D
i O '~ `~ ''*
~' O
y
< N O
_ ~ S 0
`< lD Oi
;
- ~ . !D r.r,
S rt ~ p~ ,
* ~
~
7 ? ~ 7 O ~ A t
n
D
~ ~ f
'~
N lD C S
~ 'Z fD ~ ~1
(/1 S A !D A ~
_
07
S
• ~, ~ oo v~
-`~ y
o m K
~ d~~ y
a
v
f...
0~ _
~ p '
f v
i
~O ~ ~,~ rt
S-i O
O O'O p
y rt
0
~~~
3
d e
t C ~
7 ~ ti, C~
~ rt~ K rt d K 7
N O y O
<
< O fD ~_ ~
O
ro man, ~o ~ ~
~s~ c~ -, a °, rt
(A `< (D
rt `~ r a ~ d d ~ 7C < ~
f r~r 7 Q ~
O C 001 ~ ~ •s
fT
D tG o~
f 01 N ~ ~ D ~
O (p a S fD vj
d ( p ~ rt ~
'O y
~ lD ~ S 7 n
•* X rt 0i 0i C :-r
y
$ ~ ~
N
°r '
7 0
a ~
~ 3 S
~ ~ c ~
~
c ur ~
7~Op rY
K ~ rpf a °,O S
`< rt
rt Oi ~
°: •a ~ ~ o. O Q D
a c or ro o 0 0 ~ y -
~ ~ D ~ d -i
~ v ~ y ~ o, -o ~* v ~+ 'v
~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ a y m rt ru y m -
m ~ ~* o o, ~ v -i ,~ ~
~ ° °, m
C
.:
o; y_
Ol ~ fD 'O < ~ <
~ (D y - fD fD fD rt d -
- rt Ort U fD
[
D
~ .
Ol C C O fD r0•r e0-r O
- a -z a !D ~ < Ol Ol ~ A lD (p S
N 7 fD S '* n !D fD '
•r [D
fD (n O ^' 7
rt -
rt
S
O O y 7 0 0 0
lD 'C
~ X Q' m
rt lD N [
~
r+ <~ O' lD ~ rt -~• ~? rt
fD a (j O '
~ O O Q Oal S y ~ A
~ !G p. C O
~ (D ~ -~' S
O f
D N
-.
~ O .~ S
o, o n o
o- o •, m -,
= -
m ~y
~ lD N p
aao O lD
o a-a~'a
~ ~ ~ fD -~ fD C
rY
a, A y o~
~ ~ y ~ s ~
o ~d
c o m
y
c~ rt fD
-. y
m
~
~
.,y ay
°,a O
''* Q' d
rt x
S as ~
(n ~ -~ ~
~ N. y ~ m ~ rtv m
O ~ < (D ~ <
O
~ m ~ f o vi
O Ol to 'Y
3
'-"
~
~
C v ~+co A
rt rt O
'
~ o y
S
i
d O G t0 ~ lD r7 S
(D (D
~
~ ? ~
~
~ •r < 7
r
~
. f
D
a
O S O
!D p rr y pi (~
lD a ~ ~ ~ = ~p =
' N d p -~ ~
~ lD (D O
O
, N
A~°
a°'c~y v a
S
a A t0
a
> ~
~ of
=~
~
~m~o
c r- o rt ~
0~2
~ ~ 00,0, A~ ~
. 3 v ~ y 3
g -p °'
~A rt>
~ A 3 ~.a 0' vm 't
p
~~ rt~p ~ ~ ~a ~
aao', ~ ~ Q
s~.~ ~ n a°-„' ~ ?.o ov° ~ o y o n so ~ _
~ o~, O
• N ~ N ~ ~ ~ K
5
y a o rt lD ~
a~-o ~ ~ N fD ~ ~ O K ~
';' t'p 'Y ~ ~ rt y S N
~ °
' K
a~ ° ~ :Y 7
~ !D ~O ~
~D
_
a~a3
7 `Y f ~ ~
o
'
s ~ i 0 a a
O Q~ °' ~ o ~,~
~ (D O lD rt
fD -
+m
_
p rt fD ~? - .O
•
a o y o,
o ? ~
°' l~D ~~
_. a
i~=r ~
A~c
a~ cm~ c~
• Ao,
~3~'-0~ ~~
a? co ^'
~ o moo, ~.
N rt ~ ~ m o ~ ~ y a a a
°- ~ ~ ~ °• °~'. ~o m a p ~*. o, D d ~ ~
A o o- oa
(D ~ a a ~
~'
~' ~ OJ - ~ C
~ S y d O 'rt lD N S ~ ~
~ ~ 7 ~ O
a ~ (y/1 f7D
'd -~ (C ~
O f
D p
O
3
O C• 7 'U
O
~ ' !D
O'
p [D '~
A ' '-~ A 0! !D
lD < '
O a A d O
O 7 (A A ~ fD
~ '" p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'" O rt
lD
'~ rt `A
~
-r
O
a ~ rt
~ . S
7 a -
i,
~ O
O..
~
Ol C ~
•
O ~
~ O o ~ ~ fD ~ fD (D
rt
spy
mac o m
~~c~ o~~o
-n . lD
~ ~
A Q
rt
a0, c •, > > > o
~-•ma-ate a, a -„~ O y
cu a~oc~ fl! co ~
Aa ~
a ~
o
rt S O' `'~ fD lD 0
S ~ e.•r -
7 7 ~
Q d fll y ? ~ S S lD N ~'* [D X• ~ ~ ~
S Ol fD rt a C.
~ a
~ a~ off rt~ o 0 0 ~ m~ rt'y*-~a°-' .ov m ~ ~ a~ o a~ m '< <D
, p~
~ 00 O1
i OSi tOn
N -+, ~
~ ~
~ ~ rt 7 n n• ~ ~
? lD a 7c
-n lD
rt
lD Oi ~
y
~' 3
0Ci o ~, ~ w ~ ~ v f D m orti o 0i w ~ is ~ d •
G
~ m
° ~ ~^ ~
A _
a 3 ~ rt n O
rt a
~ lD (D O- d~ fA d o
i
`-~ '~
S i S fD ~
O
A VI
3 A 7 Uf
' 0 O! (/1
O (0 7
f D
~ ° ~
~
O m c ~
p . 0 s
p~ c
O a ~n c
~
m ~ K V
i n rt c
n ~ a ~, O ~ O
. a
O ~ ~
~ ~ Or n ~
n ~, ~ d
n
~ ~ i
N
A
N Z Z
~ .
. y
•v m v c rt lD
~ o c ~ v fD
j
rt Oi p
or rt S •O p
j
or a - ~ c ~ r-
p
j
'o p ~ > > >
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ y
rt ~ n S ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ fD fD
3
e_? ~
O
~ ~
~
4! ~ m lD (D
O (D = 7
a < y cD n `7 [D '' '
7~ y p Oyi 3~ a O
rt a 7 ~ ~ '~" ~ O 7 ~ fD ~ rt ~ ~ lD ~ O 'pr ~* ~ ~_'* VOi
m ~ 3 ~ °,~°,~ a sv ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ °~rm 'v ~ ~
rt y rOr (SD '~ fSD ~ O
S ~ ~ (~ (Ap O N
~ (A
O A Vl ~ fD
~ y ~ y ? lD N 0)
~ A• ~ ~
•~
? d ~ -Oi~
O VOi rt ~ < A (~D N ~ N Vrt1• ~ -* ~ N 3 C• 7
[D = -
i~ rt
(O Q rt ~ ~ Oi ~ a
3 !D O r=•r
~ ~< S rt ~ Ol 3 Oi
O O O (D = O 7 (D N
3 a 0
o o 3rtp~ 'fpO
'
o
0,
y
~ rt y .o
< m ~~~~
ie or 3
~ c ~ < ,Y
v
i
o fD
a~
~ ~ ~ ~ fD
v ~ o
y ~~ 3 °*fD y a ~
.
_ a
i i
o v mom o, ~
~
~~~o- ~n~°-' ~oc~~ ~m~Ko ~
m A
0, c 3 ~ o a~Q. m afD.07 ~ v °,aa ~o~ fD
~ ~ < ~ A y Ol lD ~ S ~ 3 O' = rt rt !D 'O N
y
N a v~ o o d 07 Gi C O O N rt~ p ~' v
( ~
7
~
O ~ ~ O
Q~~ rt ~-*
O o~ (A O
C
~ ~-*,
Q
lD lD rt
m d n
S r lD y
O r
01 d ~ O Q
7 fD d lD rt 7
a
fA ~
C 1
~ A (D ~
K ryt (ND
~ 7 t0 -~ S S
O ~p O
~
7 C
i ~ 3 ~ ~ N O N C (fin ~ ~ Ort
~
~ ~ p W rt 3 ~ Ol
rt a
o ° ~ °rt-' o' ~
r ~ ~ 3 ~
S -ao, ~~wo,v -1
~
O
~ v~ p m a
X (D ~
rt
lD ~ -n A
'~+ O 7 fD O
y ~
y 3 rt !D O
N f
D a
~ ~ 'yr a s 'C ~
~ y< H
m
or a
p O~ o cn ~
~~~ ~
c ao,v m a~~ ~
D.
0 0
°
s o d y i p A• a to ~ ~ ~ a r~ ~. ~ ~ 3 7
~ Ol O rt d ~ ~ '~
~
rt
N 10 rt N a H. p ~ ~
O rt C
O
O
' Ol ~ .
0~ O S N rt
rt fD p fD ~ a
r
r
lD rt
O D
a l
~
d
~ lD O 'n a 0 `-~ ~' O y~
O S~
O N ~ Oi ~ y
~ C a ? Ol Oi of ~ lD ,..r 'o ° rt Ol ~
a
C _
~
n
~~
~ rou d
m m -a m y f D
= rt a~~ t° ~ c rt~
0, a~ A
d ~
rty
y
o ~
m a ~'
j
>>
~ c 01 A~
d
y,
~ ~ w rt is o o~
~ y
d a ~
~
~ ~ d ( /1
y
rt 7~ S
0 A '
S _
lAD O r o 0 ~' ~ DJ
~
' °
3 rt
o a3 m= c °' ~ ~
~~ °
m °' o n 3 C
o c d co ~
a a~
~ v ~
?~~ o, ~
~
~ ~
~ O
~• ~ rt N.
rr • ~
rt C
-~ a
~
G C ~ ~
o
~ a~ ~
~ a~ rt~ 3 ~
~
o,
~ O n
~
_ .~
c •
`~ ~o rt '~ ~ o
°
o ~
~ or
-
m ~
g 01 ~ ~v m o
, 3 ~ ~
v°O ~ ~ o
r
C to ~
~ ~
~ ~
r
o
j (D ~m
rt
~
~
~
rt
•
w
•
•
r
y C
co
~ m
m q
D~
a
~N
~~
~; z
,., m
d~
o ~
o
0
m
N
w
~ ~ ~
C
~
rt
~
~
°; s a d
r
~.
0 ~
0
a
~ ~. ~
> >
~~ y -"o c ~-"~ o n; y~ o N~ an ~ c o
3
~ n
O
fD ^ d
~eao°- 0 7~~ X D
•m~~~ y~
Ol O ~
d~~o~~. '1
y ~~
3
o~rt~
'~ `-~ ~ a
O -~ rr S A C O' A 3 ? y ~ .
7 7 c S
00
C ~ 00 ~, ~ S fD ~ Oi ~ ~ ep-r 01 ,..~ ~ !1 lD O ~ lD
fD O
a ~~ O
`
~
lD y !D
~ p C
O i
~ lD d O ' ~
~ /D ~ a ~ N U1
"T C `G D' K t~
O O
~'
d G ?
~G A
rr lD ~ 0!
f'D 0! -
~rt
~
S O
rt
4 rt rt
rt
d
S
C
~ ~ '~" p
i
~ ~
~
y
i
~ C ~ ~
p
~ l
D
~
, 3 n_
O
i
~
~~ ~ a °+~c, ~ ~~~•°v a ~ °'o o,
~ d • - y N• ~ O ~ fD Ol O ~ ryr n• ~ ~ 7 N t0
y
' d ~ ~
~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ n !D
> rt 7
rt ~
C
d 3
~ ~
~ c 7 ~ ~. > j
~ y ° n ~ N ~• v ~
`G O
n ,-r . c ~ a .. !D K lD 0
1
3 ~ „t
y
C ~ ~
~ O
O ~ d A rt (D d 01
rt y S y ~ UOj e-- O lD (D
< S ~ ~
n O r7
S~ fD ~ S ~ y K 7~ 7 fD ~ d<~
.A ~
d
n y rt O1 ~
'~ A -~ c ~! Oi rt O
'"~
(D
_
Oi K
y
~o
N y ~••r°
a
3 ~ ~ N ~ ~aru~nm
n ~
(D $ p
S
(p ~
p ~ f<D
O
i
f1
fD lD n ~. d rt fD
(p W y rt
W n U) ,-f ~
n
K °
Z ~m m SQ?~ d'C -I
(D fD E
N N-~Ny p ~'*~p
n r!
~
N O eOr O
0 n
n N
r
p
r
~ " 7 p 7 d~
fD rt fD - fD <
'G p !D
j ~ 7
U
i
p
~
~
c ~
~ ~
3 7
~ o o ~~ ~ ~
o
~
.~
a
nn ~
r'r' ~ 7 ~ ~ Uzi A N r~ 7_rt" 'O ~ ~ ~ ~ rr V1
S
0
S ~ i O lD ~-,r lD ~ 7 (D ~ - ~ !
7
rt 'Z d
'
m ^ ° 3 3 ° ~ o, ° ~ ~ ~ °
' ~ nay
_ ~
3
O 'O'++ N lD rt 3~ 7 0
~
~ ~ S Opl fD Q~ Or
Uf
rt K -Z
N y
°' o
~ f/1 ~ !D UI 3
~ ~ ?'
v
m~.<
ar c o
°~~ o ~
~ d
3 i r°r ~ O ^ fD '~• f~
mm nmo AO ~ ~ rr OJ _+t lpD 'y*.
-
OOl lD rt C• 'O"r d ,~~ ~ Or
vOi ~ ~ N ~ _
~ O
y r' S ~ !~D d fD rr n C y 0! ~ !gy S ~
0
O
'
p
•
3
S p
p
rt 1
V
7
i~ !
r 7 -
D
d
i N '
O
* e
n X ~ ~ tO
rt
A
~ p
~
~
~ < "''~ -"' O ~ ~,
S O 7
n
O
~
-
' O~~ N A
p
" 7 ~..~ ~ d
O
~ Q O '
,.r ~ y -,~ ~
° ~
m c~ D
rt f
n ~
~fD~a~"
c
o
~-a~
~ ~~
~
~~ ~•mo,
~
3
;
aQ.~
~
Ol lD
0
° ~
~~ A D ,rt
X 0 0
p~
r N lD
0 r
3~y .~°m..,,o, ~,oo,~ ~3•
~ t0 r- ~ j N n S
~
rt~ 0 lAD c
< 3
;
fD
o aa~ n
° y
~ . ~o,
mo
C1 Ol S ~ '"~ N
~ 'p fD
Gl "il ~ 'C U) Ol ~TJ
7 O O ~ ~ -t ~ e-r ~ A
~ fD d O j
' U1
A ~
S
.~
,.
t . ~ S
C
fD p
j
2 y
Q
~m°<~N~
- ~ lD A ~• :~'~o~fD
~ ~
33°°~
ro
Oi ~ n ~ ~
p O
m
A 7 ~
~ art Oi ~ ~ ~< N (SD j -I O C
7 7 y A rr
(D N '"~ .•. Gi ~ to '" r rr rt j O N ~ N pAj ? d
~°~~~
o
~ ~o~ m
ru ,~ y
~
~ coA°• ~o
o -,
O
~
~
A mew
~
C fD O ~"''
c
y i
y
~ O '
'~
O ' -~ O
a n ~ rt l<D (D N N rt~ p~ 0 0 °a ° a ~ o
O fD
~ 1
~ f 7 p
~ .~ ~ S
Q'p~ < lD ~ ~ fD
~~ fD y Oi /
? f1 3 ~ rr
C~ ?SO
rt
p ~ ~
O~~ O. O O C• N 0 3 r
t
A fD r~r• d O (D O C
~ •3m°~
f~D y O O d rt 'C O S C n rt Q~ O
O N S
na ~~o
o ~ a 3.0 3 !D
.Z~,Q ~ n~
c ~ °'
n m °
~p ''* d ~ ~' ~ O 'r i rt fD ~ -~• ~ rp-r ~ -s
rt lD ~ S (D 'C
saa'am
`" `~ ~°~~n
o
o< ~"~°°'°,~
3 n ~
n
~O+~ G ,
o,
r! ~ p rt - m
fD fD K S
~ o
rr (D
n
~ N rr
O lD ~ ~ ? C ~ ~ ~
Q '+ ~
~
'~ ~ ~
fD ~
o O ~ ~ O
~, ~ '" ° ~+
m a c ~ ~ m Dam ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~
~y ~ ~o a ~ 3 ~, o
_
O ~ o,~ 0 0
~-
S 7 A~ Q= 3 C fll
< Q A ~
n
rt~ ~ j X K~~ 7 ~ V1 ~ ~% A
'
n C o c rp a
~ mac ~•~ ~ a=
~' o ~° ~
,
f1 N rOt rr -~ ~ fD fD ''•r
(D rt fD - p ~ y ry `~ N yyj ~ 0! ~ A
7
~m-,~30~~~,or
~ a
`^3A
N ~ K ~• = (Il
fD lD _~
rOr rt S p 'O ~
7
p
K j ~ O
O <
A i d
p
j
~
Uf S -~ o
a ° a3 ~ ~ c ~ ° rt cva
.
y
•
0 7 ~ ~ tD A
H fD
~ _~ ~. p S
S
p
~ Q p
N
rt
f
[D ~ S~ O
D ~
c ~ ~ ° n ~ ~ ° ~ C
i
U
~ -, -I t0
n
rt
S
_ O fD rr O
oma?
~~ fD rh
~~
~
~a
~
Q r"
~ ;~
fD 7
_ _ rt
p
i 7~ O p p
y i n v
~ Q~ ~ Q
m n n co a y
a a_ ~ y d
Q fD ~ it ~ y fD 3 A
c a~ ~~ m ~a~ < ~ ~
~;v nvi
'Y y ° 3 ~ ~ ~~ -.~ O
0 0, ~ -°
~
~ ~ ~ ~ o
~
a -
• •