HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/2004 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning CommissionFILE COPY
U
PLANNING AND BONING
COMMISSION
• September 16, 2004
Special Workshop Meeting - 5:00 P.M.
Regular Workshop Meeting ~- X6:30 P,M.
Regular Meeting ~ 7:00 P.M.
C7
•
GQIIe~e Station
Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future
•
•
AGENDA
Special Workshop Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 5:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, College Station City Hall
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
i. Consideration, discussion and possible action regarding the zoning of properties that
are not in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan to include potential city-
initiated rezonings.
2. Consideration, discussion and possible action regarding vehicular and pedestrian
connectivity issues in College Station.
3. 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 b~ limited to a proposal to place the subject on an
agenda for a subsequent meeting.
4. Adjourn
Consultation with Attorney ~(iov't Gods ~.--4ion S51 071} ; o~lbla a~...ion
The Planning and Zoning Commission may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation
subject or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be
in public. If litigation or attomey-client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting, an executive session will be held.
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicapped parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service
must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call 979-764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989.
Agendas posted on Internet Website http:/~vyyw.cstx.gov and Cable Access Channel 19.
roc ~peclal worlcsnop Agenda September 16, 2004
Page 1 of 1
•
GQlis~e StatiQri N
Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future
AGEND,~4
Workshop Meeting
Rlanning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, September 16, 2004, at 6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, College Station City Hall
111 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
1. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items.
2. Discussion of minor and amending plats approved by Staff.
3. Discussion of Subcommittee Reports.
^ Neighbofiood Task Force
4. Discussion and appointment of a Planning & Zoning Commission subcommittee
to work on the parkland dedication ordinance update.
5. Discussion of the Blue Ribbon Committee report.
6. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items
• Member may inquire about a subject for which notice
statement of specific factual information or the recitation
given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to
agenda for a subsequent meeting.
7. Adjourn
C7
- A Planning and Zoning
has not been given. A
of existing policy may be
place the subject on an
Consokatbn with Attorney ~Gtoov't C~~ --'ion 55+ 07+}~o~,sibia a..~ion
The Planning and Zoning Commission may seek advice from its 8ttomey regarding a pending and contemplated litigation
subject or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be
in public. If litigation or attorney-client privileged information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting, an executive session will be held.
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicapped parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service
must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call 979-764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989.
Agendas posted on Internet Website http:llwww.cstx.gov and Cable Access Channel 19.
rtxc worlcsnop Agenaa September 16, 2004
Page 1 of 1
• ~
College Station
Embracing the Past, Explortng the Future
AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Planning and Zoning Commission
Thursday, September 16, 2004, at y:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, College Station City Hall
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
i. Hear Citizens. At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to
address the Commission on planning and zoning issues not already scheduled on
tonight's agenda. The citizen presentations wilt be limited to three minutes in order
to accommodate everyone who wishes to address the Commission and to allow
adequate time for completion of the agenda items. The Commission will receive
the information, ask city staff to look into the matter, or will place the matter on
a future agenda for discussion. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give
your name and address for the record.)
All matters listed under Item 2, Consent Agenda, are considered to be routine by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. These items include
preliminary and final plats, where staff has found compliance with all minimum subdivision
regulations. All items approved by Consent are approved with any and all staff
recommendations. There will not be separate discussion of these items. If any
Commissioner desires to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda it will be moved to the
• Regular Agenda far further consideration.
2. consent Agenda.
2.1 Consideration, discussion and possible action on the minutes:
^ August 19, 2004 Workshop Minutes
• August 19, 2004 Regular Minutes
2.2 Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for Cotten
Subdivision Phase 1 consisting of 2 lots on 7 acres generally located at 2360
Harvey Mitchell Parkway. (04-211 ST)
Regular Agenda.
3. Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence from
meetings.
4. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent
Agenda by Commission action.
5. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Replat for Bald Prairie Lots 6, 7 &
8 and a Final Plat for Edelweiss Gartens, Phase 6, consisting of 57 lots on 15.7
acres generally located at Victoria Avenue end Night Rain Drive. (04-191 ST)
6. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Replat of Lot 1 in the Willow Run
• Subdivision, Phase 1 consisting of 4 lots on 29.5 acres located off Headwater Lane
and I&GN Road in the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). (04-192 CC)
P&Z Agenda September 16, 2004 Page i of 2
•
•
7. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Development Plat for the
Paterson Estate consisting of 1 lot on 20 acres located at 2192 Bradley Road. (04-
zo2 sr)
8. Public healing, discussion, and possible action qn a Rezoning for the Leschper
property, 5.1 acres located at the northwest corner of Alexandria Avenue and Barron
Road, from A-O Agricultural-Open to R-i Single Family Residential. (04-207 JP)
9. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Replat of the L.O. Ball Memorial
Subdivision Phase 2, Lot 8, Block 3 consisting of 6 lots on 2.748 acres located at the
intersection of Birmingham Drive and Longmire Drive. (04-214 CC)
10. Publlc hearing, discussion, and possible action on an Ordinance amending the Unified
Development Ordinance regarding Non-Residential Architectural Standards and Site
Requirements. (04-169 JK)
11. 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.
12. Adjourn.
Consultation with Attorney {C,34v't C~~e Section 5Si.071~ i ooaible ,fiction.
The Planning and Zoning Commission may seek advice from Its attorney regarding a pending and contemplated litigation
subject ar attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will ba
in public. if litigation or attorney-client privlle~ed information issues arise as to the posted subject matter of this Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting, an executive session will be held.
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicapped parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service
must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call 979-764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989.
Agendas posted on Internet Wabsite htto://www.cstx.aov and cable Access Channel i9
P&Z Agenda
September 16, 2004
Page2of2
MINUTES
•
College Station N
Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future
VllorkshOp Meeting
Planning and honing Commission
Thursday, August 19, 2004, at x:00 p.m.
Administrative Conference Room, City Hall
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Shafer, Hooton, Reynolds, White, Davis, Nichols, and
Fedora.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Maloney and Happ.
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant City Manager Brown, Development Manager Ruiz,
Assistant Development Manager George, Development Services Director Dunn, Senior
Planner Fletcher, Transportation Planner Fogle, City Planner Kee, Economic Development
Director Foutz, Public Works Director Smith, Planning Intern Perez, Staff Planners Hitchcock,
Boyer, Prochazka, and Reeves, Graduate Civil Engineers Cotter and Thompson, Action
Center Representative Wolf, Action Center Coordinator Voitier, Assistant City Attorney
IVemcik, and Staff Assistant Hazlett.
i. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items.
• Clarification of items on the regular agenda were made. Explanations regarding the
Comprehensive Pian and Thoroughfare Plan followed. Chairman Shafer will direct
the Commission to treat each section of Agenda item No. 7 with a separate motion.
City Planner Kee commented on the priority 6 greenway.
2. Consideration and discussion regarding a future ordinance amending the
Unified Development Ordinance regarding Non-Residential Archiitectural
Standards and Site Requirements. (04-169)
City Planner Kee made the presentation of this item. In her opening remarks, Ms.
Kee introduced Elton Abbot, Arkitex Studio and recognized Economic Development
Director Foutz who worked in concert on the project. Ms. Kee stated that the focus
of the workshop was to present ideas for raising the requirements for Non-
Residential Standards and Site Requirements for consideration in preparation for
amendments to the UDO. She reported that this was born out of the City Council
Strategic Plan Retreat. Ms. Kee pointed out the general standards. A discussion
followed with questions and remarks regarding business logos, signage, and big box
retailers. Ms. Foutz interjected that with the right demographics, the big box
retailers will come. Commissioners expressed concem regarding pedestrian safety,
setbacks, irrigation, fire and emergency vehicle access, and bicycle parking facilities.
Commissioner Reynolds interjected that there is a lot to consider including the
economics involved with it. The Commission. commended Ms. Kee on her report.
3. Update and discussion regarding a recent amendment to the City's
Subdivision Regulations regarding water supply requirements and fire
protection.
. Public Works Director Mark Smith updated the Commission on a recent amendment
to the City's Subdivision Regulations approved at the last City Council meeting. The
ordinance amendment changed the regulations in several sections relating to water
P&Z Workshop Minutes August 19, 2004 Page i of 2
supply requirements and fire protection. New subdivision plats in rural and ETJ areas
will be affected by the change that will require them to meet the fire flow
• requirements in their water supply.
4. Discussion of minor and amending plats approved by Staff.
• South Hampton Phase 1, Lots 12 and 13 (04-173)
Development Manager Ruiz gave a brief explanation of the minor change in this plat.
5. Discussion of the Blue Ribbon Committee report.
Commissioner White reported that the Committee continues to meet and projects a
final report to be completed in early September. He stated that a second draft is
currently being revised and that the Committee will meet again next Wednesday.
6. Update and discussion regarding a pending Comprehensive Plan amendment
for the Appomattox thoroughfare extension between the Windwood
Subdivision and Horse Haven Lane.
Transportation Planner Fogle stated that the City Council approved the Commission's
recommendation regarding the Thoroughfare Plan that was presented at the previous
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. He stated that staff will meet with the
developer and the residents to seek alternative solutions to the issues and concerns.
7. Planning >ik Zoning, Commission Calendars:
Agenda Planning Calendar as of August 13, 2004
August 23 Strategic Planning Workshop
August 25 Comprehensive Plan Public Meeting -Appomattox
September 23 Joint meeting with City Council to discuss city-initiated
rezonings and connectivity issues.
• October 13-16 American Planning Association State Conference -Austin
Senior Planner Fletcher encouraged the Commission to attend the APA Conference.
The September 23 meeting will be posted.
8. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and
Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A
statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be
given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an
agenda for a subsequent meeting.
Commissioner Nichols requested a Strategic Planning meeting.
9. Adjourn
Commissioner White motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Davis
seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
ABSENT: None.
Attest: Approved:
__-
SuSdn. Hazlett, Staff AsSist.ant Scott Shafer, Chairman
Development Services Planning and Zoning Commission
P&Z Workshop Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 2 of 2
1
College Station N
Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Planning and toning Commission
Thursday, August 19, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, College Station City Hatl
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and
White.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None.
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Happ and Maloney.
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Development Services Director Dunn, Economic Development
Director Foutz, Assistant City Manager Brown, City Planner Kee, Development Manger Ruiz,
Assistant Development Manager George, Assistant .City Attorney Nemcik, Senior Planner
Fletcher, Transportation Planner Fogy, Graduate Civil Engineers Cotter and Thompson,
Public Works Director Smith, Staff Planners Prochazka, Hitchcock, Reeves, and Boyer,
Planning Intern Perez, Action Center Representative Wolf, and Staff Assistant Hazlett.
Chairman Shafer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
1. Hear Citizens.
None.
2. Cgnsent Aae~nda.
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the consent agenda items. Commissioner
White seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
ABSENT: None.
2.1 Approved by consent the minutes:
• August 5, 2004 Workshop Minutes
• August 5, 2004 Regular Minutes
2.2 Approved by consent a Preliminary Rlat for Stonebrook Subdivision consisting
of 95 lots and a reserve tract on 17.327 acres located at the intersection of
Old Rock Prairie Road with the new alignment of Rock Prairie Road. (04-160)
2.3 Approved by consent a Final Plat for the Williams Creek Subdivision PHi
consisting of 24 lots on 38.7 acres generally located at Greens Prairie Road
and Rock Prairie Road East. (04-163)
2.4 Approved by consent a Final Plat for Our Saviour's Lutheran Church, Lot i,
Block 1 consisting of 7.628 acres, located at the northeast corner of State
Highway 6 and Woodcreek Drive. (04-175)
P&Z Minutes August 19, 2004 Page i of 10
2.5 Approved by consent a Final Plat for E.M. Tones Farm Piace Lot Z consisting of
1 lot on 7 acres generally located at Krenek Tap Road and Central Park Lane.
(04-17$)
$ggy ar men a.
3. Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence
from meetings.
None.
4. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on Items removed from the
Consent Agenda by Commission action.
None.
5. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Replat for Gateway
Phase iR and a Final Plat for the Gateway Pfiase 3 Lot 1R consisting of 4
lots on 22.7 acres generally located at University Drive East at Forest Drive.
(04-155)
Graduate Civil Engineer Thompson presented the Staff Report. Mr. Thompson stated
that Lot iR is being further divided into Lot lAR, Lot 8 and Lot 12. Lot 8 is currently
Gateway Station whereas the other lots are undeveloped at this time. He added that
all the properties are accessed from University Drive at the signalized intersection.
Mr. Thompson reported that there were several requirements placed on the Gateway
during the rezoning. One was that Phase 3 is required to provide access to the
adjacent lot to the West. A note to this effect is included on the plat. He added that
Phase 2, 3, and 4 also include floodplain and floodway, as shown on the plat.
• Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing.
Terry Barr, Mitchell and Morgan agreed with Staff, adding two modifications: (i)
Note #10 added to plat that states all utilities to be located underground in order to
promote the aesthetics of the property; (2) No requirement to add a 20' easement.
Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing.
Some discussion regarding utilities and the easement ensued.
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the replat with Staff comments.
Commissioner White seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
ABSENT: None.
Commissioner White motioned to approve the final plat. Commissioner Davis
seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Rey~holds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
ABSENT: None.
6. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning of 12.49 acres,
• generally located near the southeast intersection of Harvey Mttcheli
Parkway and the future Dartmouth Street extension, from R-1 Single Family
Residential to P-MUD Planned Mixed Use Development ~nri#h the OV Overlay
District. (04-161)
P&Z Minutes August 19, X004 Page 2 of 10
Staff Planner Prochazka presented the Staff Report, stating that approval of the
• rezoning is recommended. Staff is also supporting the application of the overlay
district on the property because of the proximity to the City Center project. Ms.
Prochazka pointed out the Land Use Plan designations on the subject property. She
reported that approxirpately 4.5 acres at the south end of the proposed rezoning
area is within the 100-year floodplain and that the Greenways Program supports
approval of the P-MUD, with the 100-year floodplain reserved as designated
greenway on the Concept Plan. A Concept Plan is required to be approved by the
Design Review Board prior to development of this property. The Parks & Recreation
Board, the Greenways Program Manager, and Development Services staff will review
the Concept Plan and make a recommendation to the Design Review Board. She
pointed o~it that if the Commission should approve the application of the OV OveHay
District, they have determined that the subject property is located along a gateway
or major corridor to the City.
Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing.
Veronica Morgan, Mitchell and Morgan Engineering, displayed a concept plan of the
overall layout of the proposed project and pointed out various destination points
within the project as well as the vegetated and floodplain areas. She stated that
discussions are underway regarding the final designs and that flexibility for the
creation of the design is a major component. She answered questions regarding the
greenway and the reclamation of some areas as well as questions regarding the
zoning.
The applicant, Kenny Cotten, made a brief presentation regarding the aesthetics of
• the project, stating that with it being a pedestrian mall, it will prove to be a
destination point for the city.
Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing.
Ms. Prochazka clarified the specifics regarding the P-MUD zoning district, the OV
Overlay District, and the process by which the project will go before the Design
Review Board for approval. There was also a brief discussion regarding parking
setbacks. Designation concerns regarding the floodplain will be addressed during the
platting process.
Commissioner Nichols motioned to approve the rezoning from R-1 Single Family
Residential to P-MUD Planned Mixed Use Development and the application of the OV
Overlay District, determining that the subject property is located along a gateway or
major corridor to the City. Commissioner White seconded the motion, which carried
by a unanimous vote of 7-0.
FOR: _ Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
ABSENT: None.
7. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an Ordinance amending
the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Land Use Plan and the
Thoroughfare Plan for an area generally described as Pebble Creek
Subdivision. (04-138)
Senior Planner Fletcher presented the Staff Report. Mr. Fletcher displayed a copy of
• the Comprehensive Plan and described in depth the details of the ordinance and
amendments, which involves four parcels of land. He Stated that Staff recommends
amending the Land Use Plan designations for the four parcels as requested. Staff
P&Z Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 3 of 10
also recommends approval of the request to amend the Thoroughfare Plan for the
Spearman Drive realignment. However, Staff does not support the request to amend
• Congressional Drive, but rather recommends that it should remain on the Plan as is.
In conclusion, Mr. Fletcher summarized the proposed changes for the benefit of the
audience.
Some discussion regarding street alignment ensued as well as other alternative
access ways. Staff pointed out that traffic concerns would be addressed at the time
of the rezonings. In addition, it was noted that with the current Spearman
alignment, the R-i zoning district would be affected by significant buffer
standards through the UDO (Unified Development Ordinance).
Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing.
The following people spoke during the time of the public hearing:
Jessica limmerson, Planning and Land Use Solutions, asked the Commission's
approval of all six items presented. She stated that changes over time in the market
and with different codes and ordinances that apply to the tract have been
instrumental in causing the situation with the Congressional alignment. She stated
that the applicant is asking that the Congressional connection be removed from the
Thoroughfare Pian.
The applicant, Davis Young, 806 Coral Ridge East, commented on each of the four
parcels as follows:
Parcel 1 - No market to build more of that type of infrastructure as shown on land
use plan; Parcel 2 - A destination office center for professional businesses; not
• visible from roadway or the residents that back up to it; P I - No plans for
development at this time; Parcel 4 -Not desirable to market as residential;
Spearman is not beneficial for development; Congressional extension could be
negative; There are issues with the oil pad site on the property; adjacent to city's
business park; Supported as commercial on city's land use plan; Potential to open
neighbofiood to safety issues.
Ron Edmonds, a resident on Birdie Court, expressed concern regarding the amount
of easement between a subdivision and office buildings. He does not want the
backside of a mall from the backside of his home.
Ron Kaiser, 4601 Colonial Circle, outlined his reasons for opposing the changes in the
Land Use Plan. He pointed out that notification letters are not sent t0 property
owners regarding items going before the Design Review Board for consideration.
Ted Hopgood, 4600 Oakmont Circle spoke in support of the applicant's proposal.
Sharon Kelly, 4600 Slice Court, expressed concerns regarding traffic flow, dispersing,
and safety. She suggested a traffic study for Spearman.
Rick Dusold, 46b2 Oakmont Circle, expressed zoning district concerns. He
encouraged the Commission to keep in mind the applicant's plans when the zonings
are submitted for consideration and approval.
Emil Ogden, 4600 Spyglass Court, spoke in favor of the applicant's proposal.
• Davis Young interjected that the zoning ordinance has a building height requirement
based on the distance from the homes in the subdivision. In addition, the fact that
Spearman runs directly behind the homes adds additional buffering between the two.
P&Z Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 4 of 10
He stated that he plans to allow the native buffer to remain. He added that the
office buildings would be small 5,000 square feet buildings unlike the large ones in a
• typical business park.
Larry Bicket, 800 Four Court, expressed concerns regarding traffic funneling and
safety. He stated that a traffic light at Lakeway and Greens Prairie is needed.
Doug Hess, 802 Fore Court, stated that he paid a premium for his property because
of the lack of flow-through traffic. He expressed concern regarding drainage
problems with the extension of Spearman as well as traffic concems with egress and
ingress related to Greens Prairie.
Pat Brunes, 801 Fore Court, is also concerned with the amount of traffic for the area
and stated that options to relieve traffic in and out of Pebble Creek should be
considered.
(No name) Objected to the extension of Pebble Creek Parkway going beyond Pebble
Creek Development Company property.
Thor Hoppess, 5101 Spanish Bay, and president of the Home Owner's Association,
referenced the letter sent to the Commission. He asked that alternative exits be
considered because he believes the extension from Lakeway into Pebble Creek would
set the neighborhood up for cut-through traffic, which would cause safety and
security issues.
Brian Bochner, 5111 Bellerive Bend Drive, City Liaison Committee Vice Chair,
supports the realignment of Spearman but opposes the extension of Congressional,
• stating that it would not be suitable for a collector. He said that the Greens Prairie
intersection at the State Highway 6 intersection would become congested. He
encouraged the Staff to find alternative solutions.
Commissioner Davis interjected that there will always be traffic issues as long as
development is continuing. He stated that the Commission could look at how to
minimize the impact and yet achieve goals for safe traffic ingress and egress.
Stephen Atkins, 716 Royal Adelade, affirmed the points mentioned by the two
proceeding speakers. He agreed that a signal light is necessary on Greens Prairie
Road. He pointed out that other developers are contributing to the traff+c problems.
Also, he stated that there is a need for northern bound roadways.
Todd Huebner, 823 Plum Hollow, presented a petition of over 239 signatures asking
that the access to the southern side of Pebble Creek not be allowed. He stated that
when the State Highway 6 plan is completed, it would provide them with the needed
traffic relief. Mr. Huebner is in favor of the Spearman option and believes it will
reduce the traffic associated with the school. He added that the new entrance to
State Highway 6 that is planned would also reduce the school traffic.
Chad Bohne, 710 Berry Creek, expressed concerns regarding traffic. He believes the
ramp changes proposed by TxDOT will be a major improvement, but that an
alternative route to Lakeway that would bypass the school is needed. He stated that
the median openings are also possible issues.
Robert Hepman, Birdie Court, stated that although the residents do not support the
extension of Congressional as it is proposed, they do support some sort of southern
access. He stated that a traffic study is needed for the existing problems.
P&Z Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 5 of ib
Dave Parrets, 708 Kingsman Court, asked the Commission to take a long view of
Congressional as it is short-sited and if created could be named crime and accident
• corridor. This is of great concern to many of the Pebble Creek residents. The
Congressional Avenue connection is not wanted.
Mr. Bohne interjected that some other form of access is needed in that section of
Pebble Creek in order to allow traffic access Lakeway.
Ron Kaiser, 4601 Colonial, recommended that the Commission table the proposal,
take no action at this time, and perform a traffic study using a traffic engineer.
Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner White motioned to approve the Land Use Plan amendment for Parcel
i. Commissioner Fedora seconded the motion.
Chairman Shafer expressed concern about the entire block being rezoned to Regions(
Retail. He felt the AP, Administrative Professional would provide a less intensive land
use next to the school and the existing residences. He hopes that as the re~onings
are submitted that the Commission will consider the influence on the neighborhood
adjacent the more southern part of the tract. Commissioner White concurred. He
encouraged the Staff to meet with the school district regarding this parcel and how it
may be impacted.
Chairman Shafer called the question. The motion to approve the Land Use Plan
amendment for Parcel 1 carried by a vote of 7.0
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
• AGAINST: None.
ABSENT: None.
There was some discussion regarding Parcels 2 and 3 in regards to the zoning
classification and uses. The underlying zoning is unaffected with the Land Use Plan
amendment.
Commissioner Nichols motioned to approve the rezoning of Parcels 2 and 3 to PDD,
Planned Development District as proposed. Commissioner Davis seconded the
motion. Senior Planner Fletcher clarified that Parcel 3 preserves the floodplain area
and that buffer concerns can be addressed at the time of rezoning.
Chairman Shafer tailed the question. The motion carried, 7-0.
FOR: Shafer, pavis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
ABSENT: None.
Commissioner White motioned to approve the Land Use Plan amendment for Parcel
4. Commissioner Reynolds seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: None.
ABSENT: None.
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the Thoroughfare Plan amendment as
proposed. Commissioner Nichols seconded the motion.
• Commissioner Davis explained that implementing the existing plan is not a good
solution and neither is doing nothing at all. If the change is implemented it may not
be the solution today, but depending on the speed of development in the area, we
P&Z Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 6 of 10
may have a solution in a year. People will be impacted. He stated that he agreed
with many of the comments but hopes that the changes will provide potential for
• positive benefits.
Commissioner Fedora interjected that the problem lies with Greens Prairie Road. He
stated than another ingress/egress is the answer because there has to be an
alternative to getting in and out of the area. He said the traffic alleviation is in the
future in seeing plans and projects completed.
Further discussion ensued.
Chairman Shafer called the question. The motion to approve the Thoroughfare Plan
amendment carried by a vote of 6-i.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
AGAINST: Fedora.
ABSENT: None.
Commissioner White motioned to remove Congressional Drive from the Thoroughfare
Plan between Lakeway and St. Andrews Drive as proposed. There was no second to
the motion. Therefore, the motion failed.
Commissioner Davis motioned to leave Congressional Drive on the Thoroughfare Plan
as is and deny the proposed request. Since there was not a second to the motion,
the motion failed.
Commissioner Davis motioned to recommend that a traffic study be performed for
southern egress and the feasibility and advisability to do that. Congressional Drive
• remains on the Thoroughfare Plan. The motion failed due to the lack of a second.
Commissioner Nichols motioned to leave Congressional Drive on the Thoroughfare
Plan but to direct Staff to evaluate appropriate intersections in order to avoid
direction intersection with current Congressional Drive in order to provide
ingress/egress. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion.
Commissioner White encouraged the Staff and members of the Home Owner`s
Association to continue to meet to explore other options and alternatives. Chairman
Shafer stated that some kind of relief is necessary and that the new plan should not
create the kind of problems cited tonight nor should it adversely impact the
neighborhood.
Chairman Shafer called the question. The motion carried 6-i.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, and Reynolds.
AGAINST: White.
ABSENT: None.
The Commissioner convened at 9:50 fora 10-minute recess.
8. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on an Ordinance amending
the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Land Use Plan and Thoroughfare
Pian fora 1,282.09-acre tract located east of SH 6 between the Pebble
Creek Subdivision and the college Station City Limits. (04-158)
The Commission reconvened at 10 p.m.
• Senior Planner Fletcher presented the Staff Report. He stated that Staff
recommends approval of the amendment. A graphic display of the current
P&Z Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 7 of 10
Thoroughfare Pian and Land Use Plan were displayed. He pointed out the subject
area. He explained the proposed Thoroughfare Plan. He stated that there is a spine
corridor servicing the entire development that ultimately will reach Peach Creek
Road. TxDOT's proposed changes show a grade separation opposite Nantucket Drive
associated with the freeway construction, frontage road improvement, and the entry
and exit ramp reconfiguration. The minor arterial would benefit from the proximity
of the grade separation opposite Nantucket. Mr. Fletcher pointed out that there was
a change in the Land Use Pian on the original proposal in regards to densities. The
reason for the change is the inclusion of conservation subdivision design principals
with the preservation of creeks and natural habitat areas, green spaces and trail
systems. He added that the Land Use Density is measured over the gross parcel.
There is also a neighborhood retail component proposed for the middle of the
development. Staff met regarding related issues such as greenways that are being
preserved and mitigation sites being proposed. There is a strong inclination to
preserve the natural component along the creek. Staff also met regarding utilities
and is working in concert with consultants on water and wastewater regional master
plan. This will be implemented through the Thoroughfare Plan.
There was some discussion regarding the minor arterial off the interchange at
Nantucket. Mr. Fletcher answered concerns regarding the building of the roads and
the grade separation. He stated that the Thoroughfare Pian would reflect that,
should it be approved tonight. He added that it would also be indicated on the plat.
Transportation Planner Fogle interjected information regarding the on and off ramp.
He pointed it out on the graphic that was displayed.
Mr. Fletcher stated that the other item of issue is the demonstration by Staff that
this should be a minor arterial through the development. The applicant prefers a
• major collector. He stated that there needs to be some type of regional east-west
mobility in this area more substantial than a major collector, which over time, would
not be adequate as the developments build out.
Mr. Fogie pointed out that Staff is looking at traffic information provided by the
applicant that a minor arterial is not warranted by the traffic. However, the fact that
neighboring developments would be traveling through this area to get to State
Highway 6 supports Staff's recommendation.
Mr. Fletcher stated that there would be approximately 1400 units at build-out for this
development with a lower density than Pebble Creek, which includes a mix of
dwelling unit types. He pointed out several access points for the development.
Mr. Fletcher summarized Staff's recommendations for the Thoroughfare Plan.
Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Paul Clarke, spoke in favor of the project. He identified the ramp and
stated that when he met with TxDOT, he agreed to a ramp that would lead to State
Highway 6, providing an egress from the development, which is a minor change. He
spoke briefly of the design for the Highway 6 widening. He pointed out that this is
College Station's largest master plan community. It is the only one ever suggested
under the new UDO (Unified Development Ordinance). Mr. Clarke stated that the
development has six ingresses and egresses throughout the development and will
potentially relieve some of the problems associated with Pebble Creek. He addressed
• the recent trend of taking arterials through a development rather than around them.
He stated that the emphasis should be to use the existing infrastructure in the ETJ to
Widen these roads. Traffic should be routed around neighborhoods and not through
them. He pointed out overpasses and the fact that the roads are not lining up with
P&Z Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 8 of 10
anything. He asked that the road be a major collector based on their studies. He
prefers not to have a county arterial run through the development.
• Chairman Shafer asked Mr. Clarke to clarify the difference between a major arterial
and a minor collector. Mr. Clarke stated that Staff recommends raised median with
curbs. He does not want that at this time because of the possible destruction of the
habitat. He stated that he wants to keep the habitat close to the right-of-ways. He
made further comments regarding the minor collector.
Brian Buchner, X111 Bellerive Bend Drive, stated that whatever is decided should be
coordinated with the southern part of Pebble Creek and asked the Commission not to
recommend approval until the issues are resolved through meetings with the staff
and residents of Pebble Creek.
Thor Hoppess, 5101 Spanish Bay, stated that there is an opportunity to solve a
serious issue in the southeast part of College Station with providing the inlets for the
development and working a way to connect to Pebble Creek Parkway. The issue with
Spearman and Congressional can be eliminated by tying in to what Mr. Clarke wants
to do on the very south and what the Pebble Creek residents want to do on the very
north end, and particularly if Pebble Creek Parkway is tied in going north and angling
back toward State Highway 6. This is an opportunity to provide an answer and open
the pathway.
Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Nichols asked Staff to clarify what the impact would be on Nantucket.
Mr. Fogie addressed the questions. He stated that it would not be detrimental to
that development. He pointed out ingress and egress points. He stated that, while
• the Staff does not like to see arterials splitting the middle of a development either, it
would be an advantage having the interchange there to provide for regional mobility.
Mr. Fletcher clarified the request including the revisions made during the final
meeting with the applicant.
Mr. Fogle explained the differences between a major collector and minor arterial.
Some discussion regarding the 90' cross-section ensued. He also explained the
difference between the county and city requirements regarding roadways, public
utilities, and right~of-ways.
Chairman Shafer interjected that design is Critical at this stage of the development.
He commented on the minor arterial and stated that he would support another cross
section possibly without curb and gutter that would make it a different kind of major
arterial and would tie into everything else that is located in that area.
Mr. Fogie stated that the city is willing to work with the developer to preserve the
natural environment. Mr. Fletcher justified the classification and clarified the
proposal. The applicant and Staff agree on the Land Use Plan issues.
Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the Land Use Plan as proposed, with Staff
recommendations. Commissioner Houton seconded the motion. The motion carried
7-0.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, Reynolds, and White.
• AGAINST: None.
ABSENT: None.
P&Z Minutes August 19, 2004 Page 9 of 10
Mr. Fogle clarified the details regarding the applicant's preference for a major
collector as opposed to a minor arterial. He stated that the cross section issue will
be handled at the time of platting.
Commissioner Nichols motioned to approve the Thoroughfare Plan per Staff s
recommendation, specifying that the major collector be classified as a minor arterial
with direction to the Staff to work on the planning stage with the developer to
protect the habitat and to be creative in designing the cross section in such a way
that it will accommodate the arterial needs but also the habitat needs as best as
possible. Commissioner White seconded the motion.
Chairman Shafer concurred with the points Commissioner Nichols made in his
motion, but also encouraged the Staff to work with the applicant in making the
project an acceptable design.
Chairman Shafer called the question. The motion to approve carried by a vote of 6-
i.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, and White.
AGAINST: Reynolds.
ABSENT: None.
9. 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.
10. Adjourn.
Commissioner White motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Hooton
seconded the motion, which carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned.
FOR: Shafer, Davis, Fedora, Hooton, Nichols, and White.
AGAINST: Reynolds.
ABSENT: None.
Approved:
SC4tt Shafer, Chai~tYtan
Planning and Zoning Commission
Attest:
Susan Hazlett, Staff Assistant
Development Services
P&Z Minutes August 19, 2004
Page 10 of 10
b
~
{y¢~
". _ p
_ ! 66
~
~ p
~i.~ p
o a
/
~ ~ d a 4a
~ ~
~ W ,[ ~
~ ~
m ~ w a _ .
~
ER FaEE,HpY SOVtHI
~` RuDO
l
r; ^~
N
~
t ~
y ~ e
~
p
F"`~ o~
~
_
~ Q
0 q ~
~ 4L
~ V ~ _
W "
Q Q b
• ~
oc
OF FO gUt~l
~-
V LLa
r
r
a N
b
W
U
a
'^
N b
~ 7
O
W
Q ~ ~
w _
L
^
}V
~
g ~ ~ = ~ 4- W
~~ . ~ m w ~
>~
O
~ P ~
9 ~
O ~ U
~~
P
3 a
w
~ ~
m
~ w '
`^
Y
Q
o` J
,,~ ti17
^i ~
r y
r~
t„T
Z ~'.
W ,
~ ~y . S
~ _ 1
m ^~
NNW
Z
~ ~ ~3
W
w
U W
W _J U
Q
~` to ~
~
-gym
oa ~_
~Q m
v OW
~~
(/') ;
~
~o~,o ~
J
~ la1
~ Z
~
~
~~'i {~
a
JJ
-~ p
o~
~J~
J Q Q
'" c
~G
d
~a a UD
~,
t+% ~
O W
N W
t ~
_~ _ `~ ,~ U~
ok~ v oQ
~' ~ Z ~
~ ~ ~ O ~ ~~~*~ O
V m ~~
W ~ ~
MEMORANDUM
September 16, 2004
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Spencer Thompson, Graduate Civil Engr
Email: sthompson@cstx.gov
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT GOTTEN SUBDIVISION PH 1, LOTS 1 & 2
Item: Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for Cotten
Subdivision Phase 1 consisting of 2 lots on 7 acres generally located at 2360 Harvey
Mitchell Pkwy. (04-00500211)
Applicant: Veronica Morgan, Agent for Kenny Cotten, Owner
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat.
•
Item Summary: This item is for consideration of a Final Plat for Cotten Subdivision
Phase 1, Lots 1 and 2. The property is located along Harvey Mitchell Pkwy across from
the City Center. The site was recently rezoned to C-1 with OV Overlay District. This
project will construct Dartmouth through to the south, as shown on the plat. Access to
both lots will be from Dartmouth. The OV Overlay will apply additional restrictions on
colors, signage and setbacks.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations:
Land Use Plan: Planned Development
Thoroughfare Plan: Dartmouth is classified as a Minor Arterial with bike lanes
Parkland Dedication: N/A
Special Area Plans: The site is located south of the City Center Project. The OV
Overlay was applied to the C-1 zoning.
Budgetary & Financial Summary: Oversize Participation is being requested for
construction of Dartmouth.
Attachments:
1. Area map
2. Application
3. Aerial
4. Copy of Plat on wall of Council Chambers
~~
4~,'~~~~
~~
FOR OFFICE _UISE ONLY
P8Z CASE NO.: U4 ""~
DATE SUBMITTED: ~'
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
(Check one) ^ Minor ^ Amending ® Final ^ Vacating ^ Replat
(5300.00) (=300.00) (6400.00) 000.00) (6600.00)"
"InGudes public hearing fee
The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P8Z 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 applicable)
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.
N/A Copy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats (if appNcable).
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).
N/A Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provide proof of
~Ite of Preapplicatlon Conference:
NAME OF SUBDIVISION Kenny Cotten's BBQ
SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (Lot 8~ Block) approximately 600 feet west of the
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name Veronica J.B. Moroan. P.E. -Mitchell & Morgan. LLP
Street Address __ 511 University Drive East. Ste. 204 City College Station
State TX Zip Code 77840 E-Mail Address vCcDmitchellandmoraan.com
Phone Number (979) 260-6963
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Fax Number (979) 260-6963
Name Kennv Cotten
Street Address 5541_ Bear Lane. Suite 111 City COrDUS Christi
State TX Zip Code 78405
Phone Number (361) 289-5168
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
E-Mail Address
Fax Number (361) 289-5442
Name Veronica J.B. Morgan. P.E. -Mitchell & Morgan. LLP
Street Address 511 University Drive East. Ste 204 City __ College Station
State TX Zip Code 77840 E-Mail Address vCa~mitchellandmorgan.com
Phone Number (979) 260-6963 Fax Number __f979) 260-6963
Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume and Page #
6H 3/03
1 of 5
Acreage ~ Total Property 6.98 Total # Of lots 2 R-0-W Acreage 1.438
Existing Use: Vacant Proposed Use:_ Restaurant/Retail
ber Of Lots By Zoning District 2 /C-1 w/ O-V / /
verage Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
n/a /
Floodplain Acreage 0
A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and approved Master Plan and/or Preliminary Plat (if
applicable):
None
Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations 8~ Reason For Same: None
Requested Oversize Participation: Oversize participation will be requested on Dartmouth and the 12" waterline
within the Dartmouth right-of-wav
Total Linear Footage of
Proposed Public:
705 Streets
1410 Sidewalks
25_ Sanitary Sewer Lines
27 Water Lines
N/A Channels
181_ Storm Sewers
1410 Bike Lanes /Paths
Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat:
ACREAGE: N/A
# 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 cert~es that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true,
correct, and complete. The undersigned hereby requests approval by the City of College Station of the above-ident~ed
final plat and attests that this request does not amend any covenants or restrictions associated with this plat.
igna re and Title Date
6/103 2 of 5
IIE~II
n a~
N h ~''~~ b h `
Q b^ ~ h
HO ~y h
ii~ h„1 h • ~? O .~
y b ~4~" h
h
_ _ ~3. o a
o . ~ ~
O ~g ~ h
~ V ' ~~ p
b^ ' 1
4(, h
W -,
ti , ~ ~
h
h ~ ~ ~ Q
b~ ao H ~ V a ~~?T 4. W/
°e ° o b ~ II ?
'~ b \ O^ t '
~, .. _ a
h F!J,.
n ~ 9
b p pp 1
a a c y 9 ^
^b ~ ^ ~~ h ham` h S.yi~` q ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ BB ~ry~~Ii~I~ ~ k W
„ ~E: o M1h u ~ ~I ~ "IF~ .
i ~ I
'~~ JP {I ~
y b h S ~1 ay ! I ~I ~b 9f ll~ ~~~~~ ~ I~
h '~ 'O yb ` I ' ~•~
^ Q ~ I ~I P 'if~!~d~; ~ V
„1 h ^h + ab h
h' b ^~ b ~ Q~ ~ ~~ ~ hq
h ~ h b'
b h L~ ~~ } b
1~ _ p ~ ~
~ b
f ~ h
V ~ a p ` h ^~ h; ^b
~ ~ h ^ h
h ~y5 ~ q
h ~$ !hi
b
7 _
~ N~~ h ~ 8i ~ ,h ~b
~ •~ r ~n ~- _
V "' OH ~ ,$ !J `.~ ~~{. OHO b
n b
Kyy . ~O $ ^Ji ?0`~ ~ `riH
~b _ ~ X
(~ "+ . hJ.~a b 1 h
\h ~ '~'$~ a ``N `hh h ~'1~1
O (iF. h „ W
~ ' r ` ~ h~ ~~ 1 h N O
N _ W
3 ~ LL
.. h J ~ 1 ~ b
o-~ ~~
_~ -, W Z w e,o i_ A`
b q b h ^'t q M ~'6'~ ~ .~ ~ ~ 5
` b b Y ~/ ~ $ ~ ~ f~
~ Q'
h ~.' h m b b h Py` o h .~ N (O~
C N ~f" a~ ..'h 4~ 0 ~/ O
n ~. .. ~~~ ^b bib ~ ti _ , {y„/\
~ o =~ a
.'°„ ~n
~ ~
b h~ `~! h h b ~ ~h
q N $ a
a s b ~ p
o b ^ ,
MEMORANDUM
September 16, 2004
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Spencer Thompson, Graduate Civil Engr
Email: shompson@cstx.gov
SUBJECT: REPEAT FOR BALD PRAIRIE LOTS 6, 7 & 8 AND A FINAL PLAT for
EDELWEISS GARTENS PH 6
Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Replat for Bald Prairie Lots
6, 7 & 8 and a Final Plat for Edelweiss Gartens PH 6 consisting of 57 lots on 15.7
acres generally located at Victoria Avenue and Night Rain Drive. (04-00500191)
Applicant: Steve Arden, Owner/ Developer.
• Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat.
Item Summary: This item is set for a Public Hearing because a section of the subject
property involves a Replat of a portion of the Bald Prairie Subdivision. The original plat
for Bald Prairie was filed in 1973 and therefore does not come under Section 18 of the
Subdivision Regulations for older subdivisions. All proposed lots meet the standards of
the Subdivision Regulations. The majority of the subject area is zoned R-1. However,
a portion of the subject area is zoned R-3. All lots are being platted to meet R-1
standards as allowed by the UDO. Mountain Breeze Way is a Minor Collector and will
connect to Victoria. The Victoria connection is being dedicated with this plat to meet
the requirements of Section 8-G.2 of the Subdivision Regulations which states:
No tract, lot or parcel shall be subdivided unless fhe required internal
street system adjoins an existing, paved public right-of-way.
The off-site portion of Victoria was constructed and paved with Westfield Village Phase
6 but not dedicated as infrastructure. Mountain Breeze Way will connect with Renee
Lane and eventually with SH 40, now under construction.
The Developer is proposing "lot-line construction" for all lots except Lot 7 on Faimes
Court, as shown on the Plat. Homes will be constructed on the lot line opposite the
Maintenance Easement (ME). The eave of the home on the lot line is allowed to extend
over the property line. The ME restricts storage of combustible items in the area under
the eave of the neighboring home. The proposed plat meets the regulations for lot line
construction as outlined in Section 8.2 of the UDO.
The lat includes additional areas to be dedi
p sated as parkland. A future park is
proposed adjacent to Latinne Ct, as recommended by the Parks Board. The plat also
includes several HOA easements. Edelweiss developments are well known for having
landscaped areas adjacent to thoroughfares.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations:
Land Use Plan: Single-family, residential
Thoroughfare Plan: Mountain Breeze Way is classified as a Minor Collector
Parkland Dedication: Requirements are being met with land dedication. Development
fees are still applicable.
Budgetary & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Area map
2. Application
3: Aerial
4. Section 8.2, UDO
5. Copy of Plat on wall of Council Chambers
•
•
Article 8. Subdivision Design and Improvements
8.2 Lot Line Construction
The following requirements apply to all single-family residential development.
A. Description
A zero lot line development is where houses in a development on a common street
frontage are shifted or offset to one side of their lot. This provides for greater usable
yard space on each lot. These developments require that planning for all of the house
locations be done at the same time. Zero lot line developments are allowed by right.
Review for compliance with the standards of this Section shall occur during the
subdivision platting process. Restrictions that assure the minimum distance between
houses and any required easements must be recorded on the plats of the applicable
lots. Proof of such recordation must be submitted as part of the building permit
application.
B. Setbacks
The side building setback may be reduced to zero on one side of the house. This
reduction does not apply to the street side setback or to the interior side setback
adjacent to lots that are not part of the zero lot line project. The reduced setback may
be located anywhere between the lot line and the minimum setback required for the
district. The minimum distance between all buildings in the development must be fifteen
feet.
C. Additional Standards
1. Eaves
The eaves on the side of a house with a reduced setback may project a maximum of 18
inches over the adjacent property line. In this case, an easement for the eave projection
must be recorded on the plat and deed for the lot where the projection occurs.
2. Maintenance Easement
An easement between the two property owners to allow for maintenance or repair of the
house is required when the eaves or side wall of the house are within four feet of the
adjacent property line. The easement on the adjacent property must provide at least
five feet of unobstructed space between the furthermost projection of the structure and
the edge of the easement. These easements must be shown on the recorded plat.
3. Privacy
If the sidewall of the house is on the property line, or within three feet of the property
line, windows or other openings that allow for visibility into the side yard of the adjacent
lot are not allowed. Windows that do not allow visibility into the side yard of the adjacent
lot, such as a clerestory window or a translucent window, are allowed. All materials
within three feet of the property line shall be fire-rated to meet building code
requirements.
FOR OFFICE US ONLY
P&Z Case No.: /~'~11 -~`_ ~ ' I
~`„~'' Date Submitted: ~- ~' ~~
' ~ pm
3. ~a
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
(Check one) ^ Amending ^ Final ^ Vacating ® Replat
($300.00) ($400.00) ($400.00) ($600.00)*
"Includes public hearing fee
The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P8Z Commission consideration.
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
® Final plat review and filing fee (see above). NOTE: Multiple Sheets ~ $55.00 per additional sheet
N/A Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations ~ $100 (if applicable)
~ Development permit fee of $200.00 (if applicable).
Infrastructure inspection fee of $600.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed)
® Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review.)
® One (1) copy of the approved Preliminary Plat and/or one (1) Master Plan (if applicable).
® Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station I.S.D.
® A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
® Two (2) copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat (if applicable).
N/A Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provide proof of
approval if applicable).
~NE OF SUBDIVISION EDELWEISS GARTENSLPHASE 6
SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (Lot & Block) _ R. Stevenson League A-54
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name Mr. Steve Arden. Edelweiss Gartens Venture E-Mail
Street Address 311 Cecilia LOOD
City College Station State TX Zip Code 77845
Phone Number 979-846-8788 Fax Number 979-846-0652
CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: (All owners must be identified. Please attach an
additional sheet, if necessary)
Name Same as above E-Mail
Street Address
City
State
Phone Number
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
Zip Code
Fax Number
Name McClure & Browne Engineering/Surveyin Inc E-Mail mikemCa~tca.net
Street Address 1008 Woodcreek Drive
'ty College Station State TX Zip Code 77845
one Number 979-693-3838
Fax Number 979-693-2554
1-Aug-02 1 of 5
0
Acreage Total Property 15.453 acres Total # Of Lots 57 R-O-W Acreage 3.74 acres
tang Use: Vacant & Residential Proposed Use: _ Single Family Residential
umber Of Lots By Zoning District ~,7 / RR=3 40 / R-1 /
Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
0.163 / t~-1
Floodplain Acreage None
A Statement Addressing Any Differences Between The Final Plat And Approved Master Development Plan
And/Or Preliminary Plat (if Applicable):
None
Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations & Reason For Same: None
Requested Oversize Participation: Sewer
Total Linear Footage of
Proposed Public:
900 L.F. Streets
2780 L.F. Sidewalks
50 L.F. Sanitary Sewer Lines
080 L.F. Water Lines
-0- Channels
70 L.F. 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 = $
# of Multi-Family Dwelling Units X $452 = $
(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-identi#ed final plat and attests that this request does not amend any covenants or
restrictions associated with this plaf.
• ,cam
Signa re and T' e f~T ~~
8so~-
Date
1-Aug-02 2 of 5
J ~,
Z
~ ~
....
~ ,,
j r r
9
.. _.
:~
yy
rr _. __
`~
n7L~' ~~
y1 '\
~
J
,
~1.. ~ \
' ~
,.
Div •~, `~.
~
' r ~v
Y, y~,
'y~ ~> ~
~ _
~
~/~ _
r ~
1r
J ~
7 ,
/
r
~
.\
Y,•,
, ~
,.
~
i
~ ' \ ~
..
~, ~
\
t
`.
.~ t __
i ~..
~ `, ~-
~`, `., - _
` , ;'
;.
;,, ~
,;
~ I i' -..
,:
~>
~, ~ ~ ;
'~ ,
;;
.,
I~
_i ~
\ f ~ ~ <~
~ . ~ ~~
. ;~.,_; ,._y;
.~; ~,;
,,, ..
~..
i
,~ -..~,
,.
~,
~ sir i::.
,~.
i` ~ \' 1/ ~ /' \~
l _..Jr~
~~ ~
;
~
~, ,,, ~
>
.
~ •.,
\~~~
.%
,
~~, ...
-~ .
,\ ,'.
N
r
i
d'
N
(~
U
t"~
O
J
r
2
a
z
0
J
J
X
F-
O ~
~ ~
cv
~ W
N ~
~ W
O W
0
U
`'t ~ l~ ~
,~1 i~ ~~~
• MEMORANDUM
September 10, 2004
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Carol Cotter, Graduate Civil Engineer
Email: ccotter@cstx.gov
SUBJECT: Replat of Lot 1 Willow Run, Phase One (FP)
Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Replat of Lot 1 in the
Willow Run Subdivision, Phase 1 consisting of 4 lots on 29.5 acres located off
Headwater Lane and I&GN Road in the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).
(04-00500192)
Applicant: Kling Engineering, Applicant for Owners, Roy and Cindy Brantley
• Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Replat with Staff
Review Comments No. 2.
This item is for the consideration of a Replat of Lot 1 of the Willow Run
Subdivision, Phase One in the City's ETJ. The applicant is subdividing the
existing 29.5-acre lot into 4 lots. Lots 1-A, 1-C and 1-D will take access from
Headwater Lane by way of a private access easement through Lot 1-A. Lot 1-B
will take access from I&GN Road via a shared access easement with the
property adjacent to the Replat. This Replat meets the minimum requirements
for ETJ subdivisions.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Replat is in compliance with the
Thoroughfare Plan, which designates I&GN Road as a major collector.
Budgetary & Financial Summary: NA
Attachments:
1. Area map
2. Application
3. Aerial
4. Staff Review Comments No. 2
5. Copy of Plat on wall of Council Chambers
C7
•
•
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS N0.2
Project: WILLOW RUN (FP) - 04-00500192
ENGINEERING
1. Establish minimum finished floor elevations for all lots.
Reviewed by: Carol Cotter
Date: September 10, 2004
•
~.~~ FOR OFFIC~~ USE O~NL-Y
P8Z Case No.: (~`'T"'~ ~.
Date Submitted: ~ ~ ~0' 0
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
(Check one) ^ Amending ^ Final ^ Vacating ® Replat
($300.00) ($400.00) ($400.00) ($600.00)"
"Includes public hearing fee
~ ne tonowmg items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for PbZ Commission
consideration.
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
^ Final plat review and filing fee (see above) NOTE: Multiple Sheets ~ $55.00 per additional sheet
^ Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations ~ $100 (if applicable)
^ Development permit fee of $200.00 (if applicable).
^ Infrastructure inspection fee of $600.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed)
® Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review.)
^ One (1) copy of the approved Preliminary Plat and/or one (1) Master Plan (if applicable).
Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station I.S.D.
® A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
^ Two (2) copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat (if applicable).
^ Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks 8~ Recreation Board, please provide proof of
NAME OF SUBDIVISION Willow Run Phase One
SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (Lot 8 Block) Lot 1
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name Kling Engineering E-Mail stewart[caklincenc.com --
Street Address 4101 Texas Ave. Suite A
City Brvan Sta#e TX Zip Code 77802
Phone Number 979-846-6212 Fax Number 979-846-8252
CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: (All owners must be identified. Please attach an
additional sheet, if necessary)
Name Rov D. & Cindy S. Brantley E-Mail
Street Address 13410 Headwater Lane
City _. Colles~e Station State TX Zip Code 77845
Phone Number 979-694-0900 Fax Number
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
Name Kling Engineering E-Mail stewart(c~klingeng.com
treat Address
ity
Phone Number
same as above
state zip code
Fax Number
~-Aug-02 1 of 5
Acreage Total Property 29.50 Total # Of Lots 3 R-O-W Acreage
sting Use: ~Qea.,n+ Proposed Use: _S~'nail~ Frmi ~y IQQ,S~ n
Number Of Lots By Zoning District n~_ / / /
Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
/ /
Floodplain Acreage n ~~
A Statement Addressing Any Differences Between The Final Plat And Approved Master Development Plan
And/Or Preliminary Plat (If Applicable):
n~~
Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations & Reason For Same: lLon~-
Requested Oversize Participation: _ /Lori
Total Linear Footage of
Proposed Public:
Streets
Sidewalks
Sanitary Sewer Lines
Water Lines
Channels
Storm Sewers
Bike Lanes /Paths
Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat:
ACREAGE:
# of acres to be dedicated + $ development fee
# of acres in floodplain
# of acres in detention
# of acres in greenways
OR
FEE IN LIEU OF LAND:
# of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 = $
# of Muiti-Family Dwelling Units X $452 = $
(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.
Date
1-Aug-02 2 of 5
F-
Z
,~ a
~,•
f
Q
O
t
O
W
0 ~ Q
~ ~
W
• Z
O
~ ~ ~
~ ~ H
~ a
~ ~
~ ,~_
.~
_~ - -
~.
a d ~~ - N
~Jbi ~ " f'W
t
O~
~~
-r N I-
~ ~
oa
U~
~ ` ~>
~~ ~~ ~ UD
/i
~ ~ ~ w au~l~r _ -
\ ~ ~ o~ ` ,~
o ~i
MEMORANDUM
September 16, 2004
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Spencer Thompson, Graduate Civil Engr
Email: sthompson@cstx.gov
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT PLAT for PATERSON ESTATE
Item: Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Development Plat for the
Paterson Estate consisting of 1 lot on 20 acres generally located at 2192 Bradley Road.
(04-00500202)
Applicant: Kerr Surveying, Agent for George and Candace Paterson, Owners
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Development Plat.
•
Item Summary: This item is for consideration of a Development Plat. A Development
Plat is required under Article 3 of the UDO. The property owners are seeking to
construct a new, slab on grade, wood-frame home to replace the existing manufactured
home. A Development Plat basically depicts existing and proposed structures and on-
site and adjacent property information. It must also conform to the City's
Comprehensive Plan, current and future City facilities and extension of infrastructure. A
Development Plat allows the City to require dedication or construction of infrastructure
to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. This plat is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The subject property is located on Bradley Road near the Carter Lake community.
Bradley is a County Road. Water service to the subject property is by the Wellborn
SUD in the Wellborn certificated area (CCN). The Applicant is requesting a variance to
the requirement to extend the public water supply to provide a ire hydrant. Compliance
with this provision would require that a new water line be extended from Rock Prairie
Road; approximately 3,000 feet. The Applicant is requesting a variance before the
Construction Board for this item in order to obtain a Building Permit. The
recommendation from City staff, Fire and Building, to the Board regarding the variance
is for approval with the condition the existing mobile home is removed after construction
of the new home. In some cases an applicant requesting such a variance is required to
install a residential fire sprinkler system in the new home. Residential sprinkler systems
• can be supplied by water systems with lower pressures in most cases. The
• Construction Board will hear the case at the 9/13/04 meeting. Results of the meeting
will be available for the Thursday night P&Z meeting on 9/16/04.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations:
Land Use Plan: Low Density, Single-family
Thoroughfare Plan: N/A
Attachments:
1. Area map
2. Application
3. Aerial
4. Copy of Plat
•
U
FOR OFFIC_ E,USE NLY
P&Z CASE NO.: (~)~/~[A,"
DATE SUBMITTED: ~
DEVELOPMENT PLAT APPLICATION °~° ~~"+
The following Items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P8Z Commission consideration.
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
~ Filing Fee of $400.00
Development Permit Application Fee of $200.00 (if applicable).
Infrastructure Inspection Fee of $600.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed)
r Application completed in full.
~ Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review.)
One (1) copy of the approved Final Plat. (if applicable)
/ Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station I.S.D.
J A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
Two (2) copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat (if applicable).
Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provide proof of
approval (if applicable).
APPLICATION DATA
Date of Required Preapplication Conference:
E OF SUBDIVISION Yh.~P~a n ~Sfr,~~e5
CIFIED LOCATION OF PROPO
SED SUBDIVISION (Lot & Block)
----~19~ ~ r-~ ~ l ~~ Raab C' l (~a~ 5fa~c cm
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Proiect):
Name
Street I
State I J~ Zip Code !/7X y0 E-Mail Address ~DUise, -~s~he~ ~~'~,~~ r~ . n~7`
Phone Number ~~;~/Q_'S Fax Number ~/-d~9f~~
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATInON: /
Name ~7r~D,~p ~Jh~ C0~1~DrP ~QT~°~~Dr~
Street Address ~19~ .~/'h-~1~~ ~'jA~( City ~ ~~~u~ '~C3'n
State ~__ Zip Code n~~' U a
Phone Number _~d -C~13(o(0
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
E-Mail Address
Fax Number
Name
Street Address City
State Zip Code
Phone Number
E-Mail Address
Fax Number
6N 3/03
Page 1 of 3
Acreage ~ Total Property o? . // Total # Of Lots R-O-W Acreage ~/ ~I
Existing Use: l' i~~n ~r czj Proposed Use: ~ c 1
ber Of Lots By Zoning District ~ / / /
verage Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
~/ / / /
Floodplain Acreage
A Statement Addressing Any Differences Between The Development Plat and the Final Plat: (If Applicable):
Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations & Reason For Same: 1/U'Yialr~ 710 -fir h i~rQr,'f
Total Linear Footage of
Proposed Public:
Streets
Sidewalks
Sanitary Sewer Lines
Water Lines
Channels
Storm Sewers
Bike Lanes /Paths
Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat:
ACREAGE:
# of acres to be dedicated + $ development fee
# of acres in floodplain
# of acres in detention
# of acres in greenways
OR
FEE IN LIEU OF LAND: ~ ~~
# of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $~3'f= $
(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
herefo are Prue, 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.
ture and Title ~ Date
6113103
Page 2 of 3
Requested Oversize Participation:
y~ ti ~ - ~ Zi _ _ ~i •~ h
~~ Z- __ -
w
4s
ti ~~ - _
~ x + -
w ~ • - _ ~g _ h ~3 ~
_ _ ~
s _ _ 1= _ _ta "__ R~ fi i~ 'Y
~^ _ y'- -_ - _ - ~ ~
r
- ~ d_ ~tiQ - _ - - ~ ~
_ ~ ~ ~ ._
ti ~
_ ,y _ _ _
V - ~ w - ,~
~ _ ~ des-., _ ' ~, ~ _ .,
RR M! p` ~ ~ ly'll -
- R R _ ~i II~;,,~
_ 4 p
~rilh„~ i 9i I
~~ - - VI!i III it &
h
~ ~ '' _ _ y
~{ 'Y '~ _
~ ^~
~~y $ ~~.
~'` ~ ti ~ _
~ !~ he ~~
,, ~ ~
~ ~
~~
0
a
o
NO ~
I.L
Q `tl J
= o
a o
a
a~
WU
w=
N
A
a
w
r R
R
'~/
1`
N
U
O
W
J
4j
_ C~ ..~
~` M~_ ~>
a = _ - {3 a o
°~ ~ ~ ~
_ - ~, ~
_ ~
o
a~ o ~~
Q ,
~ Q pd
a e 3* ' a vU- 0
~ ~ ~ , O W
eq ~?~"
.~ ~~ ~
Z~ %
~ ~ U~
;q ~ ~~
~ w 1~®
'° ~ ~ ~
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka, Staff Planner Date: September 7, 2004
Email: jprochazka a~cstx.gov
Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning for the
Leschper property, 5.1 acres located at the northwest corner of Alexandria
Avenue and Barron Road, from A-O Agricultural-Open to R-1 Single Family
Residential. (04-207)
Applicant: Kerr Surveying, agent for Lance & Karen Leschper, property owners
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning.
Item Summary: The applicant is requesting rezoning in order to subdivide the
property into two lots. The current A-O zoning requires a minimum 5 acre lot
size.
The City of College Station has a portion of the property under contract for the
relocation of Fire Station No. 3, which is currently located on the Highway 6
• Frontage Road. Government facilities are permitted uses in all zoning districts.
The remaining half of the property will continue to be used as a single family
residence.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan designates this
property and the surrounding area as Single Family Medium Density. R-1 zoning
is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Alexandria Avenue is designated
as a Minor Collector and Barron Road is designated as a Minor Arterial on the
Thoroughfare Plan.
The property is bordered on the north and west by Alexandria Subdivision, a
single family neighborhood. Shenandoah, also a single family neighborhood is
located across Barron Road to the south.
Item Background: The property was annexed in 1995 and zoned A-O
Agricultural Open at that time. The property has never been platted.
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.
R:WTLTRIPZLTRIPRODIPZ20041P0010125. DOC
Created on 9/7/2004 8:20 AM
Su ortin M
pp g aterials:
1. Location Map
2. Aerial
3. Application
4. Infrastructure and Facilities
r~
LJ
•
R: W TL TRI PZL iRI PROD1 PZ20041 P0010125. DOC
Created on 9/7/2004 8:20 AM
• INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: There is an existing 6" water main stubbed out across Alexandria
Avenue to the subject property as well as access to a 12" water main
along Barron Road.
Sewer: There is an existing 6" sewer main stubbed out across
Alexandria Avenue to the subject property.
Streets: Alexandria Avenue is designated as a Minor Collector and
Barron Road is designated as a Minor Arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan.
The City currently is in the process of improving Barron Road. The
Council has approved acquisition of ROW along this property.
Off-site Easements: None known to be needed at this time.
Drainage: The site is the top of the hill. Drainage is generally toward
the adjacent residential areas.
Flood Plain: No FEMA floodplain is located on this property.
Oversize request: None requested at this time.
Impact Fees: None
• NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagte: 8-31-04 and 9-7-04
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 9-16-04
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 9-23-04
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 50
Response Received: None as of date of staff report
•
R:WTLTRIPZLTRIPRODIPZ20041P0010125. DOC
Created on 9/7/7004 8:20 AM
.,
FQ~ O FILE U3E O Y
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR RDD (REZONING) 3 ~ 1~ .{~ m
REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 't'
i•
YV~~tdl
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
If a petition for rezoning is denied by the City Coundl, 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 1~ Zoning Commission or City
Coundl. The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for consideration:
/ Application completed in full
$500.00 application fee.
Ten (10) copies of the site plan.
Ten (10) copies of building elevations for proposed structures.
_~ Two (2) copies of a fully dimensioned map on 24"x36" paper showing:
a. Land affected;
b. Legal description of area of proposed change;
c. Present zoning;
d. Zoning dassification of all abutting land; and
e. All public and private rights-of--way and easements bounding and intersecting subject land.
_~ Written legal description of subject property (metes 8~ bounds or lot 8~ block of subdivision, whichever is
applicable).
/ The attached Cheddist and Rezoning Sup rting Information sheet completed in full.
Date of Required Preapplication Conference: ~7Ti~u5f- /~ , ~Y15/
• ~
APPLICANTS INFORMATION:
Name(s)
Street Address SOS' ~"t(Jf 1, ~~
State ~_ Zip Code /~h~~-/Cv
Phone Number ~(o~;~PQS
E-Mail Address
h
Fax Number _~/-~gp ~,/
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name(s) _ ~Qf-1~P ~ ~YPrI ~°. eh per
Street Address /R90 ,~Qr7"a~i ,enQd City ~j~J`~q~o ~5~z~,fr~cn,~
State ~~_ Zip Code ~ ~c~s _ E-Mail Address
Phone Number f~9n -~~ ~n 4 Fax Number
This property was conveyed to owner by deed, dated 7~lyH ~ z ~r1r1 grand recorded in Volume
Page of the Brazos County Deed Records. 33~7/14~ ~ 1,5~9~g3
General Location of Property: 1~0 ~rron Rd Ca A~exnnr(r-ia 14ve r3~4/a3(~
Address of Property: _ j$Q~~ "~yl~-m., ~~~f
Legal Description: 5,101 ,Ate )''2,~inor'~- ~2yer\son Qaupt 14-'S~-~
Total Acreage: ___ _ . Iraq
.Existing Zoning: _ /~ ~ Requested Zoning: ~ -~
1 of 4
Present Use of Property: ~"PSi~~h ~r~~
Proposed Use of Property: I~?-Sr ~f~p,~,~ ~~j-e t~~t,~rcm
• RDD REZONING SUPPORTING INFORMATION
3.) What will the aesthetic contribution of the proposed development be?
~~ ~hz~ ~ ~mm~d~ct:f~ ne~ag~v~ds
4.) What are the physical limitations on the site that would prevent the development from meeting all current
requirements? /?Or-e
5.) What variances are being sought with this rezoning?/IMe
A general statement regarding proposed drainage control:
(Please note that a "complete site plan" must be submitted to Development Services for a formal
review after the "conceptual" plan has been approved by the Pi3~Z and City Council prior to the
issuance of a building permit )
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
POWEf~F ATTORNEY S ~TEMENT FROM THE OWNER.
~J
Signature of caner or applicant Date
•
Re-development District Rezoning Application 8/17/2003
6.) List any other reasons to support this zone change.
N
V
V
~~
Z U
^OJh
I~
Q J Q
` ~ ~~1 m ~
m ~
O ~
W
,~ ~ NJ ~
.~
v
~
~d •
LONGMIRE DR.
~
d~ J J !ikt
.:::i,
. .
~ ~
J
~
! „~ .
~ .
`S'i
od ^
O
~
'
v
~
~' Q 1
~~ J
b
h
V ry
®
/J
®
~ .~ N
l.L
%
1N
®~ U
/~
d~® '
/~ Z Z
~
,
`~J U
~ W
Q
~
J ~ U
~ = ry Z m°- > VQ
° U
~ U4
Z
. (n ~
v, ~ ~,
b ~ ^ryi '
°
~' _
~Q
Q
N
~
~ ~ ~
'
~ LLJ
~ Q
~
°~°. ry G~ .. ~ _ h .' _ °j m
q
S V
Y ~
UW V ~~%
J~
h ~ b S ~
ry ~ V
Q Q °' ; - ~.
N
~ ~6
Z w
O
F-
Q ~ ~
N~~ O
w~U ~
J _J
O ~
U ~
V
~~ ery ry P
ry O
b ^ `
ry
Od
a
6d
m d
i
0
L
F-
,~-~ a
N
L~
f
J
J
m
N
a
_Q
0
W
J
/Q
W
O
J
rn
X
~3
O~j
r A/
r(~ LJ.
A '
W 5L
L
UD
U~
• MEMORANDUM
September 7, 2004
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Carol Cotter, Graduate Civil Engineer
Email: ccottter@cstx.gov
SUBJECT: Replat of Lot 8, Block 3, L.O. Ball Memorial Subdivision, Phase 2
Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Replat of the L.O. Ball
Memorial Subdivision Phase 2, Lot 8, Block 3 consisting of 6 lots on 2.748 acres
located at the intersection of Birmingham Drive and Longmire Drive. 04-00500214
Applicant: Rostell Chapman, Owner
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Replat as submitted
• Item Summary: This item is for consideration of a Replat of Lot 8, Block 3 in the L.O.
Ball Memorial Subdivision Phase 2 located on the corner of Longmire and Birmingham
Drives. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 2.748-acre lot into 6 lots.
Each of the lots will be approximately'/Z acre. Public water and sanitary sewer mains
will be extended with the Replat. The Replat is in compliance with the City's Subdivision
Regulations and the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan shows this area to be
Regional Retail. The current zoning of the property as C-1 and C-2 is in conformance
with Land Use Plan. The property has frontage on Longmire Drive, a Major Collector
on the City's Thoroughfare Plan, and on Birmingham Drive which is designated as a
Minor Collector. To comply with the UDO, access from Longmire and Birmingham
Drives will be limited to a shared access easement between Lots 8A and 8F and one
between Lots 8D and 8E. An internal access easement is provided for access to
additional lots.
Budgetary & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1. Area map
2. Aerial
3. Application
4. Copy of Plat on wall of Council Chambers
FOR OFFI E USI
~ ~ P&Z CASE NO.:
/~'
~C J V DATE SUBMITTED: ~,!,
•
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
(Check one) ^ Minor ^ Amending ^ Final ^ Vacating []' Replat
($300.00) ($300.00) ($400.00) ($400.00) ($600.00)•
*Includes public hearing fee
The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P8Z Commission consideration.
•
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
t/ Filing Fee (see above) NOTE: Multiple Sheets - $55.00 per additional sheet
- Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations ~ $100 (if applicable)
v Development Permit Application Fee of $200.00 (if applicable).
1~ Infrastructure Inspection Fee of $600.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed)
/ Application completed in full.
~ Copy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats (if applicable).
~ Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review.)
One (1) copy of the approved Preliminary Plat and/or one (1) Master Plan (if applicable).
~ Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station I.S.D.
A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
i/ Two (2) copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat (if applicable).
Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provide proof of
approval (if applicable).
Date of Preapplication Conference:
NAME OF SUBDIVISION o~_~-!~• av~,.t~ m~W1flY1~-l ~I~IVI~~. Z. Lo4-4.R.T (ack,3
SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (Lot 8 Block) fX ~f~rtlr?_
~j..((M l ~n~~r1 Cc.IM Q1XD175 ~~9V1OI h't l l('~ -t 1f 04tr1 ~D'SQ-Ir ~t~Y~O1/Yi ~~vt~~.~.
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name
Street Address _ ~ ~ `~a_.riren,~ ~~YQQ,i'
State Zip Code ~~$ ~_ E-Mail Address
City
Phone Number ~ ~~~~~p0~~p9~~j Fax Number ~~1~~ ~~Q - ~~ Z4--
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name
Street Address ~J~ (~O -I• ~i(p W c~ ~'t
State Zip Code ~ (~
Phone Number (q~q~ ?gyp - ~~ S ~
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEEtt R'S INFORMATION:
Name _ _~l~ ~UfltArl~~ ~ ~ _T COirl /+
Street Address X10`1 GY'pr~et.~r~ Kra . City vo Q.
State T`~_ Zip Code ~~'~~ E-Mail Address ~ e
Phone Number ja'1~111b4 -'1-~~t3 Fax Number -,
6/13/03 I „I
Fax Number ~q?2~~~ - ~1424-
Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume and Page #
Acreage - Tota! Property ~• 14 Total # Of Lots ~ R-O-W Acreage _~
xisting Use: V(jLet,t~1~~ Proposed Use: CbYNIVVIPrGtCv~ _
umber Of Lots B Zonin District / 2• / C-1 C~Z /
Y 9 ~ ~_
Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
N~ / / /
Floodplain Acreage
A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and approved Master Plan and/or Preliminary Plat (if
applicable):
Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations & Reason For Sarrre: i11DhP~
Requested Oversize Participation: _~1ph.~
Total Linear Footage of
Proposed Public:
Z7 ~ Streets (P ~~~
t~3, Sidewalks
271' Sanitary Sewer Lines(
?g,~ Water Lines (~u$,~~)
"- Channels
q2T ~Bu~
1vA~ Storm Sewers
^-' Bike Lanes /Paths
Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final
ACREAGE:
# of acres to be dedicated + development fee
# of acres in floodplain
# of acres in Bete on
# of acres in E
OR
FEE IN LI 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.
ignature and T le
•
~~ ~ a ~o~l
Date
6113/03 ~ „i ;
•
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 16, 2004
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Jane R. Kee, City Planner
RE: Proposed Revisions to Sections 2.4 Design Review Board and 7. 9,
"Non-Residential Architectural Standards", Article 7. "General
Development Standards" of the Unified Development Ordinance
This item was presented at your last workshop for discussion. At that time staff
received positive comment with direction to include flexibility for buildings under
5,000 S.F.
• Council considered the item in a workshop session on August 26th and gave
direction to move forward. It was requested that notice be given to the building
community, registered HOAs and Citizen University graduates for comment.
A presentation and discussion was held with the BLDF (Business and Land
Development Forum) on September 8. There was good discussion and feedback
and many comments have been incorporated into this iteration of the ordinance.
Changes to the building materials section have been incorporated to allow more
flexibility. Another was to change the parking Ibt setback from 20 feet back to 10
feet for all large scale developments. There was an additional comment regarding
whether it is necessary to require bike racks for all developments. Staff feels
this is important, not just for customers but for employees of businesses as well,
and tb preserve landscape areas that sometimes serve as bicycle parking. A few
email comments have been received from HOA members and Citizen University
graduates. Generally the comments have been positive and constructive. One
comment was that the prohibition against metal is too restrictive and that islands
separating parking areas should be 8 feet rather than 10 feet. Neither comment
has been incorporated into the text. The ten foot width is appropriate to
accommodate landscaping acid pedestrians and the intent i5 to prohibit metal
except as accent or roof material.
The draft ordinance is attached.
•
• EXHIBIT `~A"
That Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 2.4, "Design Review
Board", of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby
amended by adding to Section 2.4.D., "Powers and Duties", 7. Non-Residential
Architectural Standards to read as follows:
"7. Non-Residential Architectural Standards
The Design Review Board shall consider and approve or deny requests as
related to Section 7.9 of this Unified Development Ordinance regarding Building
Mass and Design, architectural metal, and new or innovative materials. "The
DRB shall adopt and amend a color palette related to Section 7.9 of this UDO.
That Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 7.9 "Non-Residential
Architectural Standards" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station,
Texas, is hereby repealed and replaced as follows:
7.9 Non-Residential Architectural Standards
A. Applicability
The design standards of this Section shall apply to non-residential buildings
located in any zoning district with the exception of the M-1, M-2 and R&D
• districts. All buildings shall be subject to the following standards. This applies to
single tenant buildings, multiple tenants, and any grouping of attached buildings
and associated out parcels.
B. Required Screening
All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view or isolated so as not to
be visible from any public right-of-way or residential district within 150 feet of
the perimeter boundary of the subject lot or tract, measured from a point five
feet above grade. Such screening, when used, shall be coordinated with the
building architecture, materials, colors and scale to maintain a unified
appearance. Acceptable methods of screening are: encasement, parapet walls,
partition screens, brick walls, or fences
Detention ponds shall be screened using berms, shrubs, walls or a combination
of these to achieve a 3 foot high screen above the visible perimeter of the
pond's finished grade.
C. Building Mass and Design
The geometric plane of the front or main building(s) facade on the first two
stories shall use architectural relief every forty-five (45') feet to provide visual
interest by incorporating a minimum of two (2) design elements from the
following options: canopies, wall plane projections or recessions, vertical
expression of structural bays, pilasters, columns, bay windows, balconies that
• extend from the building, recessed entries, stoops, porches, arcades, boxed or
bay windows, permanent decorative awnings, and or windows accompanied by
overhangs. Along all other facades visible from aright-of-way, there shall be
O/group/legal/ordinance/amendmentform.doc
• ORDINANCE NO. Page 2
some architectural element or wall recession or projection every sixty (60') feet.
Other architectural features may be considered for approval by the Design
Review Board upon application by property owner as provided in Section 3.1.
ENTRY AREAS
Roof or Parapet
Min. 2'
•
As represented above, on buildings three (3) stories or less, the horizontal line
of a flat roof (or parapet) along the front or main building facade shall change
by a minimum of two (2) feet up or down so that no more than sixty-six (66)
percent of the roofline is on the same elevation.
D. Building Materials
All primary and out-parcel buildings (except stand alone restaurants) developed
as a building plot shall have materials that are similar and complement each
other. This applies to all out-parcel buildings, regardless of their use. All exterior
facades of an out-parcel building will be considered primary facades and shall
employ architectural, site, and landscaping design elements that are integrated
with and common to those used on the primary buildings or structures on site.
These common design elements shall include building materials associated with
the main structure.
When determining area herein, windows and doors are included.
. The following applies only to the first three (3) stories of all buildings.
cu\o:\deve_ser\coversheets\2004 coversheets\september 23\nra standards\nra standards ord.9-9-04.doc
9/13/04
WINDOWS AWNINGS ARCADES
• ORDINANCE NO. Page 3
1. All building facades that are visible from adjoining properties and or public
streets shall consist of a minimum of one or more of the following
architectural units. All other materials are prohibited unless authorized
herein or by the DRB.
fired brick;
natural stone;
marble;
granite;
• tile;
• Any concrete product so long as it has an integrated color and is
textured or patterned (not aggregate material) or covered with
brick, stone, marble, granite or the or material fabricated to
simulate brick, stone, marble or granite.
For facades screened by an eight foot (8') textured masonry wall
or a continuous opaque screen of living plant material (measuring
six feet (6') in height at initial planting), the materials may also
• consist of Stucco, EFIS, hardboard, cedar siding and/or tinted,
textured tilt up concrete in any combination or amount.
2. Stucco, EFIS, hardboard, concrete products as described above and cedar
siding are allowed on visible unscreened facades subject to the following
limitations.
• Stucco, EFIS, or concrete products as described above, hard board, or
any material equivalent in appearance shall not cover more than
seventy-five percent (75%) of the overall facade.
• Wood or Cedar siding shall not cover more than thirty percent (30%)
of any facade.
• Smooth face, tinted concrete blocks shall only be used as an accent
and shall not cover more than five percent (5%) of any facade.
Buildings under 5,000 S.F. may use one hundred percent (100%)
EFIS, Stucco, hardboard, or concrete products as described above,
but only if it is painted with a minimum of two (2) colors to avoid
monotony.
3. Buildings at 20,000 S.F. or greater shall have a minimum of twenty-five
percent (25%) (calculation shall be based on the area of the first two stories
of the front facade) brick, stone, marble or granite or a material fabricated
to simulate brick or stone. All facades visible from the street shall have only
• brick, stone, marble, granite, tinted split face masonry blocks or the below
thirty (30") inches from the ground surface.
cu\o:\deve_ser\coversheets\2004 coversheets\september 23\nra standards\nra standards ord.9-9-04.doc
9/13/04
• ORDINANCE NO. Page 4
4. On any commercial building, metal or steel may be used only as an accent
(limited to no more than 10% of the fagade on which the accent is applied).
Metal or steel may be used as a roof or canopy material with no limitation on
percentage. Architectural metal with concealed fasteners may be approved
by the DRB.
5. Metal or hardboard may be used as a structural material as long as it is not
visible.
E. Building Colors
All building fagades and roofs shall consist of only colors from the color palette
maintained in the Office of the Administrator. All other colors shall be
considered accent colors and may be used on no more than ten percent (10%)
of the fagade on which the accent color is applied. Neon, metallic and
fluorescent colors are prohibited on any fagade. When applying brick, colors
normally found in manufactured fired brick are permitted. All colors of natural
stone are permitted.
F. Pedestrian /Bike Circulation & Facilities
1. Each building shall provide a facility capable of storing a minimum of four (4)
• bicycles.
2. Facilities shall be separated from motor vehicle parking to protect both
bicycles and vehicles from accidental damage and shall be sufficiently
separated from building or other walls, landscaping, or other features to
allow for ease and encouragement of use. This separation shall be a
minimum of three (3') feet. Bicycles may be permitted on sidewalks or
other paved surfaces provided that the bicycles do not block or interfere with
pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
3. Bicycle facilities shall be constructed so as to enable the user to secure by
locking the frame and one wheel of each bicycle parked therein. Facilities
must be easily usable with both U-locks and cable locks and support the
bicycle frame at two points Facilities shall be anchored securely to the
ground or building.
Additional Standards for 50,000 S.F. and above
In addition to the standards set out in this Section, the following shall apply to any
single establishment or combinations of establishments of 50,000 S.F. and above,
whether connected or not, but developed as one building plot.
Building Mass and Design
• Fagade articulation (wall plane projections or recessions) is required on the first two
(2) stories of the front or main building(s) facade. No more than thirty-three percent
(33%) of the front or main building(s) fagade shall be on the same continuous
geometric plane. Restaurant out-parcels are excluded from this articulation
cu\o:\deve_ser\coversheets\2004 coversheets\september 23\nra standards\nra standards ord.9-9-04.doc
9/13/04
• ORDINANCE NO. Page 5
requirement but are required to provide architectural relief as provided herein. Wall
plane projections or recessions shall have a minimum depth of four (4) feet.
Parking Lots
These requirements are in addition to and not in lieu of the requirements established
in Section 7.2. Off Street Parking Standards.
1. Where parking is located in the front of the building there shall beaten foot (10')
setback from the right-of-way line to the parking area.
2. Every one hundred twenty (120) parking spaces shall be a separate and distinct
parking area connected by driving lanes but separated by landscaping strips a
minimum of eight (8) feet wide and the full length of the parking row. Where
pedestrian facilities are located within landscape strips or where vehicles would
overhang these strips, the strip shall be a minimum of ten (10') feet wide.
3. An alternative parking concept may be considered by the Administrator that meets
the following minimum criteria: For every one hundred and twenty (120) parking
spaces, an 1800 square foot landscaped island shall be installed. Such island shall
be located internal to the parking lot and shall be located so as to visually break up
• each 120 parking spaces. Canopy trees must be located within the landscape
island and a pedestrian way may be allowed within.
4. Shopping cart storage spaces shall be identified on the site plan. These spaces
shall not be located in landscape islands or any areas designed for plantings or
pedestrian or bike access.
Landsca ig_ng
These requirements are in addition to and not in lieu of the requirements established
in Section 7.5. Landscaping and Tree Protection.
1. The minimum required site landscape points shall be double (2 x minimum
landscape points) that required for developments of less than 50,000 S.F. The
minimum- allowable tree size is two (2) inch caliper. Streetscape point requirements
remain the same and shall count toward the landscape point requirement.
2. Tree wells and/or planter boxes are required along fifteen percent (15%) of the
linear front of the main building(s) facade. Each tree well or planter box must
include canopy trees. This landscaping may count toward the overall landscape
requirement.
3. All landscaping strips and islands used to differentiate the one hundred and twenty
• (120) space parking areas as provided for above under "Parking Lots" must include
canopy trees.
cu\o:\deve_ser\coversheets\2004 coversheets\september 23\nra standards\nra standards ord.9-9-04.doc
9/13/04
ORDINANCE NO. Page 6
4. The substitution of two (2) non-canopy trees for one (1) canopy tree is not allowed
for more than fifty percent (50%) of the overall canopy tree requirement. Massing
of trees is encouraged.
Pedestrian /Bike Circulation & Facilities
1. There shall be designated connections among primary buildings and out-parcels for
pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Locations for sidewalks and bicycle parking facilities
shall be provided and shown on the site plan. Pedestrian walkways may be
incorporated into the landscape strips separating parking areas only if the strip is
ten (10') feet in width.
2. In centers with multiple tenants, one or more facilities capable of storing eight (8)
bicycles shall be placed in clearly designated, safe, and convenient locations, such
that no tenant entrance is farther than one hundred fifty feet (150') from a bike
facility.
3. Pedestrian walkways shall be a minimum of five (5) feet wide. Pedestrian
walkways shall connect public street sidewalks, transit stops, parking areas and
other buildings in a design that ensures safe pedestrian use.
4. There shall beaten (10) foot sidewalk along the full frontage of the primary
building facade. Tree wells and planter boxes shall be placed along this walkway
and in a manner that does not obstruct pedestrian movement. Bike parking
facilities are allowed in this area. Vehicular parking or cart storage is prohibited.
Outside display is allowed but if it does not occupy more than thirty percent (30%)
of this area and meets the requirements of 7.11.8.
Additional Standards for 150,000 S.F. or above
In addition to the above standards, the following shall apply to any single
establishment or combinations of establishments of 150,000 S.F. or above, whether
connected or not but developed as one building plot.
1. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) shall be required to determine that a level of service
(LOS) D or no less than the existing level of service shall be maintained on all
impacted streets at the time of build-out and one hundred percent (100%) parking
use.
2. Direct and safe street crossings to adjacent land uses shall be shown on the site
plan.
3. Each development shall contain a plaza or public space(s) developed as an integral
part of the development and not less than 200 square feet in area. Such areas
shall incorporate a minimum of three (3) of the following:
• Seating components
• Structural or vegetative shading
• Water features
• Decorative landscape planters
cu\o:\deve_ser\coversheets\2004 coversheets\september 23\nra standards\nra standards ord.9-9-04.doc
9/13/04
ORDINANCE NO. Page 7
• Public Art
.Outdoor eating
• Hardscape elements at entrances and within, the parking area such as
decorative pavers, low masonry walls, public art, clock towers, etc.
4. The minimum allowable tree size is two and one half (2.5) inch caliper.
Design Review Board (DRB) Consideration
The DRB may consider any new or innovative material or design that is not specifically
allowed or specified in this Section. Any such material or design shall be comparable to
those allowed in this section and shall accomplish the stated intent of providing visual
interest and meeting the intent of the provisions herein. The DRB may consider
alternate colors based on corporate branding for restaurants.
•
•
cu\o:\deve_ser\coversheets\2004 coversheets\september 23\nra standards\nra standards ord.9-9-04.doc
9/13/04
J ~.
Z
u. a
(V
O
(~
U
IP
.~'?: ~ -
~` , ~~'
wf,t
.~ .
r , ~.7
_.~;~ y~
;,~ ,~, •~
~• .~
'-;~
{ ?,~
~~ 'r r'
~~,.
~~
5. ~
Y
,~
''.
-.^~:
~~;- Y,
i- ~ ^~
~[;
4~~~ ~
. ~, 4*
~ ..~w-
(' ~~
;~
r
IrY ~ x - -
f
r+~
i ~+ _$
w ~ ri
a.
Z
00
Z
W
O
U
'';
~ W
~"' j
~ O W
.; ~ Z
5w
~ L
A,
W
UO
~
~~
s
~ o W
~'
.~ ~ '`' .
D
;~. U
~~.~ ''
'Q.
s,., Y R ~ ~
~i'~ ~ ~`` "~-~ ~' ^ ~ aj` ' ~~~'1 ~ .emu.
._
' a~. `` .'~ ,~ ..