Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/01/2004 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning Commission• FILE COPY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION • April 1, 2004 Workshop Meeting - 6:00 P.M. Regular Meeting - 7:00 P.M. • College Stat/on Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future • • AGENDA Workshop Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, April i, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. 2nd Floor Conference Room College Station City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas i. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items. 2. Discussion of minor and amending plats approved by Staff. • Gateway Subdivision, Lots 2RB and 2RE (04-86) 3. Discussion of Subcommittee Reports. • East Side Thoroughfare Plan and Land Use Update. 4. Discussion and possible action on a proposed connectivity index and pedestrian access ways in residential subdivisions. 5. Consideration, discussion and possible action regarding development requirements far driving ranges and additional development criteria when located adjacent to single-family homes. 6. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specifrc factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 7. Adjourn 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 979-7643517 or (TDD) 1-800- 735-2989. Agendas sled on Internet Website h~,#D://www.csbc.aov and Cable Access Channel 19. P&Z Workshop Agenda April 1, 2004 Pagelofi ' AGENDA • Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, April 1, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. College Station ~ Council Chambers, College Station City Hall Embracing the Pasl, Exploring the Future i 101 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 will be limited to three minutes in order to accommodate everyone who wishes to address the Commission and to allow adequate time for completion of the agenda items. The Commission will receive the information, ask city staff to look into the matter, or will place the matter on a future agenda for discussion. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give your name and address for the record.) 2. Public Comment on the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to address the Commission on the recently adopted Unified Development Ordinance. The citizen comments will be limited to three minutes in order to accommodate everyone who wishes to address the Commission and to allow adequate time for completion of the agenda items. The Commission will receive the information and it will be added to the public record. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give your name and address for the record.) All matters listed under Item 3, 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 Rnal plats, where state has found compliance with all minimum subdivis/on 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 !nr further consideration. 3. Consent Agenda. 3.1 Consideration, discussion and possible action on the minutes: • March 18, 2004 Workshop Minutes ^ March 18, 2004 Regular Minutes 3.2 Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for the Fairhaven Cove Subdivision consisting of 10 lots on 1.97 acres generally located at Nantucket Drive and Fairhaven Cove. (04-52) ~~ ~~ 3.3 Consideration, discussion and possible action on a Final Plat for the Viking Subdivision consisting of 2 lots on 4 acres located at State Highway 6 South on the "Race Track" property in the City's Ei"J. (04-57) 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 (T'DD) 1-800- 735-2989. Agendas posted on Internet Website tto://www.csbc.obv and Cable Access Channel 19 P&Z Agenda April 1, 2004 Page i of 2 3.4 Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for Indian Lakes PH 2 consisting of 39 lots on 96 acres generally located at Arrington Road and • Indian Lakes Drive in the City's ET7. 3.5 Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for Lot i of Wright-College Station Section 1 containing 3.1745 acres and located at 903 Krenek Tap Road. (04-61) Regular Agenda. 4. Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence from meetings. 5. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. 6. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Conditional Use Permit for the Wright Stealth Telecommunications Tower consisting of approximatly 3.175 acres located on the north side of Krenek Tap Road just east of Dartmouth Drive. (04-62) 7. Public hearing, discussion and possible action on a Rezoning for properties fronting Krenek Tap Road for a depth of 750'. (04-41) 8. Public hearing, discussion and possible action on the Land Use Plan Cleanup Project involving various locations modified to reflect current conditions. (04-64) 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. 10. Adjourn. Consultation with Attorney ;C-~y~+ r~we `•~+fon S51 07+ ~ • possible action 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 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. P&Z Agenda April i, 2004 Page 2 of 2 SHOP AGENDA ITEM NO. S riving Range Requirements • `~ ~~ COLLEGE STATION CITY OF COLLEGE STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM March 12, 2004 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Lauren Harrell, Planning Intern SUBJECT: Supplemental Standards for driving ranges • In response to concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning Commission about negative impacts of driving ranges on neighboring residential properties, staff has completed a survey of communities and their regulations on such uses. Many communities surveyed permit driving ranges and/or golf courses adjacent to or within residential areas with a special use permit and additional site plan review. A few communities outlined additional standards with which these facilities must comply. Additionally, we have reviewed a manual on driving range design published by Sportexe, a sports construction company. Based on the additional regulations within other communities, standards established in the driving range manual, and regulations currently in place within the UDO, staff recommends that driving ranges are listed in Section 6.2.C of the UDO, the Use Table, as a permitted use with supplemental standards (P*) in all zoning districts. The following supplemental standards would apply: o All driving ranges shall be a minimum of 10 acres and have a field size of 275 yards or greater. o For the purposes of buffering, when driving ranges are located adjacent to residentially-zoned property, they are considered a commercial use and require a fifteen-foot buffer yard and a wall per Section 7.6.F of the UDO, Minimum Buffer Standards. i • o All balls must remain on the property through proper orientation of the tee boxes, adequate buffering or screening, and barrier nets as deemed appropriate by the Administrator. o No building, structure, or outdoor activity shall be located nearer to any residentially zoned property than a distance of one hundred feet. o All ground-level lighting of the landing area shall be directed away from adjacent properties and screening shall be provided with plantings, berms, or other means as deemed appropriate by the Administrator. In addition to the alteration of the Specific Use Standards, staff suggests adding parking standards for driving ranges in Section 7.2.H of the UDO, Number of Off-Street Parking Spaces Required. Provided no other amenities than the driving range are present on the site, one parking space per tee station will be adequate. Additional conditions that may have negative impacts upon adjacent residential areas include building height (2-tier tee lines), parking, lighting, and public address systems. These impacts are adequately addressed within the UDO according to the following sections: o Height Limitations -Section 7.1.H • o Parking Standards -Section 7.2, Off-Street Parkin Standards and Section 9 7.5.D.5, Streetscape Requirements o Lighting Standards -Section 7.10 o Public Address Systems -Section 7.1.1 • ENT AGENDA ITEM N0.3.1 Minutes C7 March 18, 2004 Workshop Meeting March 18, 2004 Regular Meeting College Station Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Reynolds, and Hall. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: MINUTES Workshop Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. Training Room, College Station City Hail 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas Chairman Shafer, Commissioners Trapani and Williams. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mears. White, Davis, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF PRESENT: Development Services Director Templin, City Planner Kee, Development Manager Ruiz, Staff Planners Reeves, Prochazka, and Hitchcock, Planning Intem Harrell, Graduate Civil Engineers Thompson and Cotter, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Action Center Representative Kelly, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. i. Discussion of consent and regular agenda Items. Members of the Commission and Staff discussed various agenda items. • 2. Discussion of minor and amending plat approved by Staff. There were none. 3. Discussion of Subcommittee Reports. No reports were made. 4. Consideration, discussion and possible action of city-initiated rezonings along State Highway 6 in the Arlington Road area. City Planner Kee stated that as directed by City Council, the city is initiating the rezonings of ail the interior ln-between lots in this area to commercial. The center lot, having been recently rezoned to C-i and C-2, prompted the whole study. 5. Consideration, discussion, and possible actlon regarding an Amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance as it relates to the attached signage and banners. Development Manger Ruiz reported on the research conducted by Planning Intern Harrell relating to this item. After explaining the findings, Ms. Ruiz recommended excluding banners in the calculation of attached signage. She further recommended that one banner per business be allowed and also that permits would not required. However, standards would be required. Additionally, some provisions in the UDO would be incorporated for temporary signage for grand openings. Further discussion ensued and questions entertained. Prohibiting banners in special district areas and signage for special events was discussed. • Ms. Ruiz stated that Staff will draft the language for the Amendment and schedule the public hearings. P&Z Minutes March 18, 2004 Workshop Page 1 of 2 6. Update, discussion, and possible action on a proposed connectivity index and • pedestrian access ways in residential subdivisions. Transportation Planner Fogle explained and displayed examples of the connectivity index. He reported ways in which other cities regulate connectivity. Comments were made and discussion ensued. The Commission moved this item to the next Workshop Meeting for further discussion and possible action. 7. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member or Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 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. No items were mentioned. 8. Adjourn. Commissioner Davis motioned to adjourn the meeting. His motion was seconded by Commissioner Reynolds and carried by a vote of 5-0. FOR: Shafer, White, Davis, Hall, and Reynolds. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Trapani and Williams. • Approved: Scott Shafer, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission Attest: Susan Hazlett, Staff Assistant Development Services C7 P&Z Minutes March 18, 2004 Workshop Page 2 of 2 • . College Station N Embracing the Pass, Exploring the Future MINUTES Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, College Station City Hall 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Shafer, Commissioners Davis, White, Reynolds, and Hail. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Williams and Trapani. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Mears. CITY STAFF PRESENT: Development Services Director Templin, City Planner Kee, Development Manager Ruiz, Staff Planners Reeves, Prochazka, and Hitchcock, Planning Intern Harrell, Graduate Civil Engineers Thompson and Cotter, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik, Action Center Representative Kelly, and Staff Assistant Hazlett. • Chairman Shafer called the meeting to order. i. Hear Citizens. No one spoke. 2. Public Comment on the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). There were no comments. 3. Consent Agenda. Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the consent agenda items. Commissioner White seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, White, Reynolds, and Hall. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams and Trapani 3. i Approved by consent the minutes: • February 19, 2004 Workshop Minutes • March 4, 2004 Workshop Minutes • March 4, 2004 Regular Minutes 3.2 Approved by consent a Preliminary Plat for Dickson Run consisting of 2 lots on 15.747 acres, located at the bend in Calumet Trail adjacent to Woodlake Subdivision in the City's ETJ. (04-44) • 3.3 Approved by consent a Preliminary Plat for Castlegate Section 7 consisting of 24 tots on 31.094 acres located off Castlegate Drive, southeast of its intersection with Victoria Avenue. (04-51) P&Z Minutes March 18, 2004 Page i of 7 Regular Agenda. 4. Consideration, discussion and possible action on request(s) for absence from meetings. Commissioner White motioned to approve the absences. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. 5. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. No items were removed from the Consent Agenda. 6. Consideration, discussion and possible action on a Vacattng Plat and Final Plat for the Indian Lakes Subdivision Phase I consisting of 85 lots on 400 acres generally located at the south end of Arrington Road in the City's ETA. (04-47) Graduate Civil Engineer Thompson presented the Staff Report. Mr. Thompson recommended approval of the Vacating Piat and the Final Plat as submitted. He explained that minor changes to property lines, rights-of-way, and easements were erased with the Vacating Plat and then established through the submission of the Final Plat by the elimination of some lots and the reconfiguration of others. Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the Vacating Plat, and seconded by Commissioner Reynolds. The motion carried 5-0 FOR: Shafer, Davis, White, Reynolds, and Hall. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams and Trapani Commissioner Reynolds motioned to approve the Final Plat. The motion, which was seconded by Commissioner White, carried 5-0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, White, Reynolds, and Hall. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams and Trapani 7. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Replat for Herman F. Krenek Phase Ii oonsfsting of 2 lots on 2.94 acres generally located of'f Texas Avenue and Brentwood Drive. (04-45) Graduate Civil Engineer Cotter presented the Staff Report. Ms. Cotter explained that the Replat of Lot 5 is to divide the existing 2.94-acre lot into two equal lots, 5A and 5B. Access is provided by a private access drive between two existing businesses. She pointed out the current zoning and stated that a hotel is planned for development on one of the lots. In closing, Ms. Cotter stated that a public water main will be extended to Lot 5B as part of the replat and that Staff recommends approval of the Replat. Commissioner Davis voiced signal light and traffic concerns with the prospect of a future hotel at this site with only one ingress/egrees. Chainman Shafer concurred, especially in regards to the rear lot, 5B. Ms. Cotter pointed out the other two adjoining lots owned by the property owner and has shown on the site plan as a possible future aGCess to serve the two subject lots. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. P&Z Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 2 of 7 Craig Brown, a real estate broker representing the seller, stated that his client is going to retain SB and has complied with all of the requirements for the plat. He also indicated that they would agree to the additional access as discussed and voluntarily pulled the Final Plat request from consideration. The revised Final Plat will be presented to the Commission for consideration on April 1, 2004. Chairman Shafer clarified the additional access. Action was deferred until the April 1, 2004 meeting. Chairman Scott closed the public hearing. 8. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Replat for the University Preserve Subdivision (save and except Lots 14R and i5R) consisting of 25 residential lots on i 1.5 acres generally located at 1207 Munson. (04-40) Graduate Civil Engineer Thompson presented the Staff Report, stating that an ordinance has been approved to allow only two additional lots in this subdivision. The ordinance amends Section 18 of the Subdivision Regulations, Platting in Older Subdivision, pertaining to neighborhoods platted previous to 1970. Mr. Thompson stated that Staff recommends approval of the Replat as submitted. He called attention to the statistics included in his written Staff Report regarding the average lot sizes of the lots in this subdivision prior to and if approved, subsequent to the replat. Using the overhead drawing of the subdivision, Mr. Thompson pointed out the affected lots, Lot i and Lot 7 and the additional subsequent lot line changes in Block 2. In addition, the replat would also create an average lot size of 0.353-acres as opposed to the previous average lot size of 0.382-acres. Even with the dedication of one lot specifically used for detention purposes and the subsequent drainage channel to Munson Drive, drainage issues and concerns still remain. Mr. Thompson clarfied that Lot 7 was the cul-de-sac lot for Commissioner White. Commissioner Hall inquired of the apparent drop-off along the back property line of Lot 7 and any potential problems for neighboring homes in regards to drainage as development occurs. Mr. Thompson stated that the engineer of record eluded to putting in a drainage swell or buffer along the back of the properly line that would feed into the detention pond in order to deter the possibility of flooding for the neighboring properties. Commissioner Hall asked if a drainage easement rnuld be required. Commissioner Davis asked if drainage easements were assigned to these lots. Mr. Thompson explained that there are none platted. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik stated that a private drainage easement would be sufficient. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. Millie Jones, 1212 Munson Drive, spoke In opposition to the replat, expressing concerns regarding the number of times the applicant has been before the Commission to make changes to the subdivision. Ms. ]ones reiterated the flooding issue, particulariy mentioning flooding going all the way to Dominik. She asked the Commission to consider the applicant's past failures in following through on his plans. Commissioner Davis clarified the flooding leaving the subdivision and onto Dominik. The Developer, Switzer Deacon, stated that the storm sewer system which was required by the city has been installed and has a 10' elevation fall which substantially • improved the drainage. He added that he was not aware of any plans for a drainage ditch and pointed out the general fall of the whole area as it pertains to drainage. P&Z Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 3 of 7 Orin Michael, 1011 Dominic, also expressed concerns about the drainage and flooding. He stated that a drainage foil was needed with the additional run-off from more impervious surfaces going in vs the minimum detention efforts. Commissioner White interjected that having a drainage easement, providing reserved property grated by the property owner, would allow for the redirection of the water-flow in order to preserve the neighboring homes and properties. Commissioner Davis clarified with Mr. Micheal that water is coming through and running under the fence. Mr. Deason pointed out that an extensive water drainage study was conducted and approved by the City and drainage issues were addressed: He asked that Staff revisit the study and its conclusion, determine if the requirements have changed since the time of its approval before requiring the drainage easements. Development Manager Ruiz explained the 30-day rule on plats to the Commission, stating that action on this plat was required. Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Nemcik explained the Commission's options by approving the plat with or without requiring a drainage easement. She added that Staff should review the drainage plan and determine whether or not the plan needs to be modified in order to reflect the placement of the drainage easement. Based on Staff's recommendation, Ms. Nemcik stated that the Commission may require a drainage easement and if the the developer is not going to ameliorate; an abandonment letter can be requested. She added that the developer has an obligation to address the flooding experienced by the adjacent property owners. Ms. Ruiz stated that Staff will meet with the engineer of record and review the studies and the plans for the development. Lastly, Ms. Nemcik stated that the City can enforce the drainage ordinance regardless of whether or not there is a drainage easement and that drainage improvements can be achieved through the drainange regulations and by separate instrument. Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the plat with the condition of a 5-foot drainage easement through Lot 7. ~ Commissioner White seconded the motion and asked Staff to report to the Commission the engineering finds once the reports and plans have been reviewed with the engineer of record. The motion carried 4-i. FOR: Shafer, Davis, White, and Reynolds. AGAINST: Hall. ABSENT: Williams and Trapani 9. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for Phase 6 of the Castlegate Subdivision from A-O Agricultural Open to PDD Planned Development District, consisting of 10.80 acres generally located on the north side of Greens Prairie Road, just west of Castlegate Drive. (04-48) Staff Planner Reeves presented the Staff Report, recommending approval by Staff of • the rezoning request as submitted. The proposed Planned Development District is for a single family integrated residential community with amenities. This District also provides for the meritorious modifications of the regulations that allows for the P&Z Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 4 of 7 developer to tontine the development as it was originally envisioned and implemented in the previous Sections i-5 of the Castlegate Subdivision. These modifications along with the concept plan will go before the Design Review Board (DRB) on March 26, 2004. In closing, Ms. Reeves stated that the proposed development is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. There were no comments made. Therefore, Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the rezoning, which was seconded by Commissioner Reynolds. The motion carried 5-0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, White, Hall, and Reynolds. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams and Trapani 10. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for Nantucket Phase 7, consisting of 4.794 acres located south of Nantucket Drive between State Highway 6 and Harper's Ferry Road from A-O Agricultural Open to R-1 Single Family Residential. (04-54) Staff Planner Prochazka presented the Staff Report, recommending approval of the Rezoning for the development of single-family lots. Annexed in 2002, the property was zoned as A-O at that time but is currently in the platting process. In closing, Ms. Prochazka stated that the request complies with the land Use Plan. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. Paul Bolin, 1207 Winddrift Cove asked questions in regards to access. He did not • oppose the rezoning. ]oe Schultr, 3208 Innsbrook, representing the applicant, stated that they are currently planning for'/z-acre lots. Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner White motioned to approve the rezoning. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. 9. Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Rezoning for Phase 6 of the Castlegate Subdivision from A-0 Agricultural Open to PDD Planned Development District, consisting of 10.80 acres generally located on the north side of Greens Prairie Road, just west of Castlegate Drive. (04-48) Staff Planner Reeves presented the Staff Report, recommending approval by Staff of the rezoning request as submitted. The proposed Planned Development District is for a single family integrated residential community with amenities. This District also provides for the meritorious modifications of the regulations that allows for the devleoper to tontine the development as it was originally envisioned and implemented in the previous Sections i-5 of the Castlegate Subdivision. These modifications along with the concept plan will go before the Design Review Board (DRB) on March 26, 2004. In closing, Ms. Reeves stated that the proposed development is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. There were no comments made. Therefore, Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. P&Z Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Davis motioned to approve the rezoning, which was seconded by Commissioner Reynolds. The motion carried 5-0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, White, Hall, and Reynolds. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams and Trapani 11. Public hearing, discussion and possible action on an Amendment to Article 2, Development Review Bodies, and Artide 5, District Purpose Statements and Supplemental Standards, of the Unified Development Ordinance, creating an overlay zoning district for properties fronting Krenek Tap Road for a depth of 750'. (04-36) City Planner Kee made the presentation. She explained that this overlay zoning district is being created to apply to the properties that have frontage along Krenek Tap Road with a depth of 750'. The land acquisition, for the planned municipal complex on the south side of Krenek Tap Road, was approved in a previous bond election and the most recent bond election made provision for the construction of Phase I which will be underway in the near future. Ms. Kee explained that the City Council wishes to create an identity, not only for the municipal complex and other properties owned by the City along Krenek Tap Road, but also to make compatible all the other views along Krenek Tap Road. Having been directed to prepare additional design guidelines to supplement what is already in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to enhance the concept plan of the City Center. Setbacks were then explained at the request of Commissioner White. Sidewalks were pointed out also. Other development criteria were pointed out and questions by the Commissioners entertained. • Chairman Shafer opened the public hearing. Arthur Wright, 1098 Holt, expressed concern on how the overlay will affect the value of his land. He also mentioned access and development design concerns. Thomas Madison, 7801 Keswick Drive, Austin, property owner, expressed a desire for the completion of Central Park Lane. Also, Mr. Madison wanted confirmation that the zoning of his property which was obtained a few years ago would remain in place with this overlay. Caleb Schoeneck, Pastor, Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church, expressed concerns regarding the possibility of enlarging the parsonage and the church and the 15' setback in regards to the current location of the d~urch building. He asked for clarification on the 25% allowable change under the overlay. Considerable discussion ensued. Ms. Kee suggested adding language to the UDO that would give the DRB (Design Review Board) some latitude in considering alternative materials in order to alleviate the concerns of the church. With no one else desiring to make comments, Chairman Shafer closed the public hearing. Commissioner White motioned to approve the Amendment with the revised language • as specified by Ms. Kee. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion, which carried 5-0. P&Z Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 6 of 7 • FOR: Shafer, Davis, White, Hall, and Reynolds. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams and Trapani 12. 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 shalt be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. None. 13. Adjourn. Commissioner White motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0. FOR: Shafer, Davis, White, Hall, and Reynolds. AGAINST: None. ABSENT: Williams and Trapani • • 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 8tigation 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. P&Z Minutes March 18, 2004 Page 7 of 7 • CONSENT AGENDA ITEM N0.3.2 Final Plat t Fairhaven Cove • ~P G~ ~~ P~~ S~ J ~ Zg ~ - LLa c p Q 4 h ~~15 V fi ~, c G '~ ~ o tii P~ d,J ~ S ` ~' ~ ~ 4L `p . ~ ' 11 11 ~1~ ~ ~ F_ ~ m n t B _ ( ~ C a h ° ~ ~~ i~w h ~ ~ W 'rw ~ ~ z ., U a ~o ~ ~ P{ • ^ ~~'0. 5 ~ e M~ ~~ ~ ~~G '"' y~P~ C ~ ^ ~. ^ j6 • ~ e -, ~ d ~ Y ~ " " tl ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ U _ `2 ~ O Z, ~N ~aMS`N'M ' ° Z Q Z Y h ~ j ~ - ~ ~ a gyp W' _ W r 5~ Y _ w ~. Y _ Q J ~ _ a _ (L .~ Z Q O a ti ~ ~`t~µEt oa -, ^~-..r h v ~ ~ ~ ti 1 ,~ ~ a ° 4 N R i ~ h r .; J N Q {( Q ~ vM _ i.~ ~T b ~ ` h N . N w S;~ b >~ < X ~; W ~ ~ ~ h 1 n ~ ~ ~I Y~ ~ (fin+~ _I _ ,., ^~ a3ewonvs -, ~ ~ ~ d UO J ow ~ ~ ~ _ U~ ;~ «~ ~~ ~ b 3 yjj • MEMORANDUM March 23, 2004 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Spencer Thompson Email: shompson@cstx.gov ~~ SUBJECT: VARIANCE REQUEST and FINAL PLAT for FAIRHAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION Item: Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for the Fairhaven Cove Subdivision consisting of 10 lots on 1.97 acres generally located at Nantucket Drive and Fairhaven Cove. Applicant: Nantucket, LTD. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat contingent on approval of the variance request. Item Summary: This item is for the consideration of a Variance request and Final Plat for Fairhaven Cove. The City has worked with the Developer to bring this newly annexed area into compliance with the Subdivision Regulations. Most of the lots in Fairhaven cove are already developed. The Subdivision was in the City's ETJ when it was initially created. However, it was not created by plat. Therefore, the following variance requests are needed to comply with City regulations and officially plat the property. • 8.G.6. Cul-de-sac Cul-de-sacs shall have twenty-four (24) or fewer lots, and shall terminate in a turnaround not less than one hundred feet (100') in diameter, with a pavement diameter of eighty feet (80') • 8-G.10 Geometric Standards, Street Design Criteria for Urban and Rural streets are shown in Table 1, Street Design Criteria. The cross sections for each of the different street types generally reflect the criteria set forth in Table 1...... • 8-P. Sanitary Sewer. All subdivisions shall be provided with an approved sanitary sewerage system, meeting the standards of the City Engineering department. Curved sewers of not less than one hundred foot (100') radius are accepted, manholes of not over five hundred foot (500') spacing. • 8-T Street Li hts. It shall be the li g po cy of the City of College Station that adequate street lighting for the protection of the public and property be installed in all new subdivisions. Installation procedures and acceptable standards for street lights shall be governed by the utility standards of the Public Utilities Department in effect at the time of subdivision construction or addition thereto...... • Section 10 Parkland. In addition, the UDO in Section 9.5 states: "Unplatted properties made nonconforming by the zoning applied at the time of annexation shall be allowed to plat, provided that the resulting lot contains the entire tract." Some lots do not meet the 5,000 sgft minimum for R-1. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: Land Use Plan: Single-family residential. Zoning: Recently rezoned to R-1. Thoroughfare Plan: Nantucket Drive is a minor collector. Parkland Dedication: May be waived if variance is approved. Please note, if the property had been created by plat while in the ETJ, parkland would not be applicable. Parkland is applicable on the remaining/ surrounding area. • Open Space Dedication: Strip along backside is shown as Common Area. Special Area Plans: None Budgetary & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: 1. Area map 2. "Revised" Application 3. Letter addressing variance requests 4. Copy of Plat on wall of Council Chambers • • Fairhaven Cove Subdivision -Final Plat Case No. (FP)-04-00500052 Variance Request Variances are requested to the following sections of the Subdivision Ordinance for this subdivision: 8.G.6 Cul-de-sac Dimensions - 8.G.10 Geometric Street Standards 8.M Sidewalks 8.P Sanitary Sewer 8.T Street Lights Section 10 Parkland These variances are necessary because the existing subdivision, which was subdivided without benefit of plat, was recently annexed, and it does not comply with the Subdivision Ordinance. Since the subdivision is now within the limits of the City of College Station, the City requested that the • subdivision be platted. In order for the Final Plat to be approved and filed, the above-listed variances to the Subdivision Ordinance must be granted. • FOR OFF~~I((CE USE ONLY P&Z Case No.: O"T`"~ Date Submitted: ~' • FINAL PLAT APPLICATION (Check one) ^ Amending Q~Final ^ Vacating ^ Replat ($300.00) ($400.00) ($400.00) ($600.00)' '~. ~5 (Cx-fira 5~-e~+) 'Includes public hearing fee The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P8Z Commission consideration. MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: • i' Q Filing Fee (see above) NOTE: Multiple Sheets _ $55.OO.per additional sheet [~ Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations - $100 (if applicable) Development Permit Application Fee of $200.00 (if applicable). (~ Infrastructure Inspection Fee of $600.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed) Q~ 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 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 ~'' ~f~CVi~~ ~bnti1 NAME OF SUBDIVISION __~,ir~n~,V _ ~Lll~IV14t 1/1 SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (Lot & Block)~rhotJP,n ~~ff ~ ~Yf~t(G~" ~iUe APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name d Street Address City _~~ Phone Number State ~~ ~ Zip Code ~`7Q~-b Fax Number ~= `" ~.., CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: ~ owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet, if necessary) Name _~ P_ Q a~.k.Q~ ~,(~ E-Mail Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: r Name - E-Mail ~DU1 , t'15 Y't~ VPri~g/t .~ Street Address City ~ State `'~ Zip Code ~-~ Phone Num er 2(eD ~?~(~`~ Fax Number ~~j(- ~Q~ 1-Aug-O"1 l 01 5 Acreage Total Property I .~~ GLC(PS Total # Of Lots I D R-O-W Acreage _o.Z3 Gtr_t~,Q ~ ~ ~~~~ Existing Use: r~P~i~~yt~c~ Proposed Use: Number Of Lots By Zoning District ,~0 / ~ ~~%~ Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: Floodplain Acreage IJ A A Statement Addressing Any Differences Between The Final Plat And Approved Master Development Plan And/Or Preliminary Plat (If Applicable): • Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations ~ Reason For Same: ~,e ~ltr~ii ~ SrGI _P fi Requested Oversize Participation: ~' Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: _~_ Streets ~_ Sidewalks ~_ Sanitary Sewer Lines ~_ Water Lines ~_ Channels ~_ Storm Sewers '~_ Bike Lanes /Paths Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat: ACREAGE: # of acres to be dedicated + $ development fee # of acres in fkxxtplain # 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 ~' FX.171~~ $Lll~IV~~IDI/~ NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING. The applicant has prepared this application and cerf~es that the facts sfafed 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 Phis n:quest does not amend any covenants or restrictions associated with this plat. ~ h ~~ ~ S' ture nd Title 3 -~~~ Date ~ _q~-02 2 of 5 • CONSENT AGENDA ITEM N0.3.3 Final Plat Viking Subdivision J ~ Zg • ,i d LL H U Y W W R' U 1 0 U i / y~e ' -- Q ~ ~ . _ • i ~ , ,, ~. mr ,~ - ----_ _ -- f ---~- _ _._. __ ___- ~, ___.. p . ~ / , ._-- - -_ _- I , ~ . . , _ / ~ '1 1 r^^ V --- - ` •, ~ ~ Z - I ~~ - __.. ~ ~ ~ r '~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~- ~ ---- - ... - . ~~, ~. -~, 11 -- --J-- _ -- ?! " ~, ~~- ~ i - :. .. . ` . .\ ,, . _ i ~. ~.. .- . - - . _ . . ~; , ~. ., ~ --- /- N ~ . , y _ _ ... 1 Y/ '~ .~' .-. '' ~~ .~'• ~' \ - _ ~ ~ ^ / .~ .. ..... ~ .. i j _..._ 1. AA`` ^ W A ..~~ ~. ~ ~ ._ .. ' .:~- ,• O W .. .. .1. - - -. 1 ... .. -.;. ..... .. v. ' .. ' ~' .. '. I -. ~ i ~ __ ~.... fir. ~._ t ~ _ ..: 1 i., 1 ~: ~I ._._ . _ ~L_____ I 1 ..... ...... _ . _. _... ...... ...i... __ ._ _. • MEMORANDUM March 23, 2004 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Spencer Thompson Email: sthompson@cstx.gov ` SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT for VIKING SUBDIVISION Item: Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for the Viking Subdivision consisting of 2 lots on 4 acres generally located at SH 6 South on the "Race Track° property in the City's ETJ. . Applicant: Kerr Surveying Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval as submitted. • Item Summa :This item is for c n i r ry o s de anon of a Final Plat for 2 lots m the City's ETJ. The plat conforms to the approved Preliminary Plat, City Subdivision Regulations and County regulations. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: Land Use Plan: The LUP shows the area as single-family low density. However, being in the ETJ zoning is not applicable. Thoroughfare Plan: SH 6 is a freeway/expressway. Lakeway Drive, a minor collector is to the northeast. An arterial to the south is shown to connect Pebble Creek Prkwy, the highway overpass and Arrington Road. Parkland Dedication: NA Budgetary & Financial Summary: None in ETJ. Attachments: 1. Area map 2. Application 3. Copy of Plat on wall of Council Chambers • ~LLEGE STATION FOR OFFICE'^USE ONLY P&Z Case No.: ~/ " J Date Submitted: (A~ ~~ W 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 ^ 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) ^ All replats must be accompanied with a copy of the deed restrictions/covenants for this plat. . 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). Q' 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 approval (if applicable). NAME OF SUBDIVISION .~_, SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (Lot & Block) ~J n 4urlk. CTexas (~arld S~wa~ APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name XerrSuryeu i n~ E-Mail 1~U1 se fi"scher ~ VCY'i zvn .net Street Address ~O~ C'~'1UY~1 S~. City ~~~'St~rc~ ~n State 1'f~ Zip Code ~'1 Sill Phone Number oZlo 8-~(4~ Fax Number loaf ~ ~ 8~(Dy CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: (All owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet, if necessary) Name 1~r1 SQ~bert~ ~-- Lena vnan E-Mail Street Address 134 l r ~x f ~p,S lt1 City ~t ~ n C'o,t° State `nC Zip Code 7'7 Phone Number~4~(o~ S8g-1gQ'~ Fax Number ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: ~ame E-Mail Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number 1,Aug-02 1 of 5 Acreage Total Property Total # Of LotsoS R-O-W Acreage 'sting Use: Proposed Use: ~i~l'hpJ'~C(Gt-~ ~mber Of Lots B Zonin District ~ / / / Y 9 Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: Floodplain Acreage ~~ / / A Statement Addressing Any Differences Between The Final Plat And Approved Master Development Plan And/Or Preliminary Plat (If Applicable): Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations & Reason For Same: Requested Oversize Participation: Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: Streets 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 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-idenfi>'red final plat and attests that this request does not amend any covenants or restrictions associated with this plat. -~ ~ ~~~~ i~ Signature and Title Date 1,Aug-02 2 of 5 • CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO.3.4 Final Plat C7 Indian Lakes Phase II • ~~J _.. ,.. - ~: _,,, __ ~O _ _ __ /fi,~ ~ ._ . .. ~~ . , .__. _ ..._._ x' ~ - ,--' >. ~- _-, r • • • J ~Q Z J u. n- 0 0 ::~~~,. ._- .. ~- ~~~ < .~~ _.. ~,~;- ~.~ .r _ ~ ~ ~ '.~ ti i ___ .. .. ., . .. ;° ._ ;. .. ~, ., .,. .,. ..• .. ~,~,_ ._ t ~. }' ~L r .. .. _.. ..~ _ ~ .1T~ r+ ui ca U N a w g Q Z ~~ x ~- cW o~ F' ~Z W rn~ a~ a o~ ~w o~ ~' D U ~-. r~ MEMORANDUM March 25, 2004 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Spencer Thompson Email: sthompson@cstx.gov SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT for INDIAN LAKES PH 2 (FP) Item: Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for Indian Lakes PH 2 consisting of 39 lots on 96 acres generally located at Arrington Road and Indian Lakes Drive in the City's ETJ. Applicant: Paul Clarke, Smiling Mallard Development, LTD. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat with the • condition that Staff Review Comments #2 be addressed on the Plat. Item Summary: This item is for consideration of a Final Plat for Phase 2 of Indian Lakes Subdivision. This plat includes a portion of Mesa Verde Drive. This thoroughfare is ultimately to tie-in to SH 6 at the overpass in front of the speedway. The 100-ft ROW is being dedicated for the ultimate section however, only a rural section is being constructed at this time. The plat meets all subdivision regulations. All lots are in excess of the 1-acre minimum. The plat includes 2 lots labeled "HOA Common Area". The city recognizes common areas as undevelopable; to be used for the common good of the surround properties. Such lots cannot get an individual building permit in the City. The County does not recognize common areas. The County is willing to allow the substandard common area lots to be platted as shown if the plat contains language to the effect "common areas will now and forever be barred from being developed". Comprehensive Plan Considerations: Land Use Plan: Shown as rural. Thoroughfare Plan: Mesa Verde Drive is an arterial. Parkland Dedication: N/A Open Space Dedication: Common Areas to HOA. Special Area Plans: None • Bud eta & Financial Summa : OP 9 rY rY • Attachments: • 1. Area map 2. Application 3. Copy of Plat on wall of Council Chambers 4. Staff review Comments #2 u • STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2 Project: INDIAN LAKES PH 2 (FP) - 04-00500050 • ENGINEERING 1. The plat shall contain language to the satisfaction of the County concerning the restriction for developability of HOA common area lots. 2. Easements required on the rear of all lots were left off of Lots 5-8 Block 7 against the HOA Common Area strip and must be shown. Construction documents properly showed the easements but the plat did not. Reviewed by: Spencer Thompson Date: March 26, 2004 • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY P8Z Case No.: ~ "~ 0 Date Submitted: Q~-~C3 [Jy-' ~~i~ 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). N/A 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. N/A 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 OF SUBDIVISION INDIAN LAKES SUBDIVISION PHASE TWO SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (Lot 8~ Block) J.M. Barrera Survev A-69 Brazos County. Texas: APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name Paul J. Clarke. Manager of Smiling, Development. Ltd. Street Address City Brvan State TX Zip Code 77802 Phone Number 979.846.4384 Fax Number 979.846.1461 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 Phone Number ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Fax Number Zip Code Name McClure Engineering Inc E-Mail _ mikemCcytca.net treet Address 1008 Woodcreek Drive ity _ College Station State TX Zip Code 77845 State Phone Number 979.846.4384 Fax Number 979.846.1461 Acreage Total Property 96.056 acres Total # Of Lots 3•~_ R-O-W Acreage 13.18 acres fisting Use: vacant Proposed Use: Residential umber Of Lots By Zoning District N/A /ETJ Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: N/A /ETJ Floodplain Acreage None A Statement Addressing Any Differences Between The Final Plat And Approved Master Development Plan And/Or Preliminary Plat (If Applicable): N/A Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations 8~ Reason For Same: N/A Requested Oversize Participation: N/A ETJ CONSTRUCTION Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: N/A Streets N/A Sidewalks Sanitary Sewer Lines N/A Water Lines N/A Channels N/A Storm Sewers N/A Bike Lanes /Paths Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat: ACREAGE: N/A # of acres to be dedicated + $ development fee N/A # of acres in floodplain N/A # of acres in detention N/A # of acres in greenways OR FEE IN LIEU OF LAND: N/A # of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 = $ N/A # of Multi-Family Dwelling Units X $452 = $ N/A (date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Board NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING. The applicant has prepared this application and certfies 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. nature d Tit a /~o./~+er En,(~i,~~ 2 Z a o yL Dat )NSENT AGENDA ITEM N0.3.5 Final Plat • Wright-College Station Section I ~J ~-- x c~ z F ~` N Y a a J Q d' G /V ~~1 ~ 1 A V w V 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ F a z z o ~ a _$ ~ 4 ~r`~ ~ 4 ,, -o ~ J ,,•~ a vacc~'" sw fµ~ auk 6 S~ ~R ~ Y Q a d' H Z W U Y . Q d w ~ J ~ ~ Q F- z W U ~ b r~ Z p .a`_ O ~ = p U N J r, i a d' ~ ~ W ~ w ~ ~~_ ~ _ ~f ~I~gll r h W U 4 Q L N V z ~,, W ~~~ J U ~~? V (--~ m a (~ w \s ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ U ~ _ _ _ S ~~ ~6~ ~ ~ w `` ~ ~ Q~ t Q iE ~ . ~ ~ r ~ ~ (~ ; _ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ - - ¢ ~~ f ~ :_ * '~ ' ~ ^ r ~ t, ~ x ~ '. ~ ~ ~~ ~ = _ _ ,~ S ~' fJi' _ ~ n ~ ~ ~ C ` O W Cd` _ _ _ _ ~ ~ J r r ~ ^ M1 1~ V/ f _ ` R ` ~~ ~ = _ `4 ~J ~ Q X17 d O W ~ ^ ~` ~~~~ w ~ ~ '~ ~ O W U .~ ~ ~+ ~ ~, ~ U D ~ ~ tp- ~ ~ R 'r t ~a~ ~' • ~ ~ ~ ~a-y~ ~~, ~ W a +~. MEMORANDUM March 23, 2004 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Carol Cotter Email: ccotter@cstx.gov SUBJECT: Final Plat for Wright-College Station Section 1, Lot 1 Item: Consideration, discussion, and possible action on a Final Plat for Lot 1 of Wright-College Station Section 1 containing 3.1745 acres and located at 903 Krenek Tap Road. (04-00500061) Applicant: Arthur and Nancy Wright Family, LP -Owner Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat with • Staff Review Comments No. 2. Item Summary: This item is for the consideration of a Final Plat for Wright- College Station Section 1, Lot 1. The lot contains approximately 3.2 acres and fronts on Krenek Tap Road just south of Central Park. The property is currently a single family home site with plans for a cell tower lease compound. The Final Plat is in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan shows the property as Single Family Residential. The current use of the property is in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Current zoning of the property is R-4, multi-family. This property will fall within the Krenek Tap Overlay once the Overlay is approved by City Council. Krenek Tap Road is designated a minor collector on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. Attachments: 1. Area map 2. Application 3. Staff Review Comments No. 2 4. Copy of Preliminary Plat 5. Copy of Final Plat on Council Chamber Wall • r~ STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS N0.2 Project: WRIGHT-COLLEGE STATION SEC 1 (FP) - 04-00500061 • ENGINEERING 1. Remove driveways, pavement, and curbing delineated on plat. Plat should show property information Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: March 24, 2004 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ~~ ~ v P3Z CASE NO.: D~-~ I DATE SUBMITTED: 3'~ FINAL PLAT APPLICATION (Check one) ^ Minor ^ Amending X~ Final ^ Vacating ^ Replat (5300.00) (5300.00) (6400.00) (6400.00) (5600.00)" •Indudes public hearing fee The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P8Z Commission consideration. MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: -' J Filing Fee (see above) NOTE: Multiple Sheets - $55.00 per additional sheet N/A Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations ~ $100 (if applicable) / Development Permit Application Fee of $200.00 (if applicable). N/A Infrastructure Inspection Fee of $600.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed) ~, Application completed in full. NIA Copy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats (if applicable). ~ Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review.) N/A 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 ~ Recxeation Board, please provide proof of of Preapplication Conference: January 20, 2004 NAME OF SUBDIVISION -- WRIGHT-COLLEGE STATION, SEC. 1 SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (Lot 8 Block) - CURRENTLY ADDRESSED AS 903 KRENEK TAP ROAD APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name --- MICHAEL CRAIN (FOSSIL CREEK LAND COMPANY) Street Address --- 1110 ICI.AMATH LANE State -- TEXAS Zip Code - 77080. Phone Number - 832-928-0100 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: City --- HOUSTON E-Mail Address -MCRAIN~FOSSILCREEK.COM Fax Number -281-516-2158 Name --- ARTHUR AND NANCY WRIGHT FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Sreet Address --- 1008 Holt Street City College Station State -Texas Zip Code -77840 E-Mail Address Phone Number -979-255-5220 (mobile) Fax Number - 979-093-1448 ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: • Name --- KELLY MORAN (WT COMMUNICATION DESIGN GROUP, LLC) Street Address --- 3001 LBJ FREEWAY, SUITE 129 City --- DALLAS State -TEXAS Zip Code - 75234 E-Mail Address -KELLY.MORAN@WTCDG.COM Phone Number --- 972-739-0761 Fax Number -972-739-0762 Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume NO and Page # _ Acreage ~ Total Property 3.1745 Total # Of Lots - 1 R-O-W Acreage -NONE isting Use: --- R4 Proposed Use: R4 tuber Of Lots By Zoning District 1 / R4 Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: 1 / 3.1745 Floodplain Acreage -DOES NOT LIE WITHIN 100 YR. FLOODPLAIN (FEMA PANEL 480083 0144C, REV. 7/2/92) A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and approved Master Plan and/or Preliminary Plat (if applicable): --N/A Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations & Reason For Same: NONE Requested Oversize Participation: - N/A Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: WA_ Streets WA Sidewalks N/A Sanitary Sewer Lines N/A Water Lines N/A Channels N/A Storm Sewers N/A Bike Lanes /Paths Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat: ACREAGE: N/A N/A # of acres to be dedicated + $ development fee N/A # of acres in floodplain N/A # of acres in detention N/A # of acres in greenways OR FEE IN LIEU OF LAND: N/A # of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 =$ (date) Approved by Parks 8 Recreation Board NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING. The applicant has prepared this application and cerf~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 fiina( plat anal attests that this request does not amend any covenants or restrictions associated with this plat. nature and Title • FQ.~ I ~ .~r~r~ y Date • AGENDA ITEM N0.4 Absence Requests FILE COPY • City of College Station Absence Request. Form For Elected and Appointed Officers Name (~ ~= ~1 ~/~/' ~-1 t i ~ • t Request Submitted on 3. ~ a~ I will not be in attendance at the meeting of ~ ,~r~°,~. O for the reason(s) specified: (Date) o vT a~ S Y!~-TF Signature This request shall b_e submitted to the Secretary of the Board one-week prior to meeting date. ~~ ~_J City of College Station Absence Request Form For Elected and Appointed Officers • Name Scott Shafer Request Submitted on Date: 3124/04 I will not be in attendance at the meetings of for the reason(s) specified: I will be out of the country on business. 5/20, 6/3, 6/17 (Date) C. Scott Shafer (submitted via email) Signature • This request shall be submitted to the office of the City Secretary or Board Secretary one week prior to meeting dates • AGENDA ITEM N0.6 Conditional Use Permit • Wright Stealth Telecommunications Tower Krenek Tap Road t Y Q J Q V G. Y Q d ~ J ~ Q ~ ~ F- Z W U !~ ~ Z Z p ~-W 1- e p \= D U (/l Q W J z a o_~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ° l N z Q p ~ ~ a ~ Q W ~' Y Q 1--- Z W U ~ ` a ' b r~l ~ II N (~ i q O U Q H w w J J U H S A ~ OQ~ ' h y ~ E w O O~ /~`Z' ~I~ ~_~ ,,L, `*S~ f- ~ t~ ., R. ~ `;Yy~b 6 ~ ~ ~ •~ _ Z _ ` y3~~OS ii ~q ~ ~ Qom. ~ O ti d~./ ~N/ k ~ ~ -~ ~. ~ ~4 f v _ ~ N - ~ 6 C Q 1 ~. ~ ~~ `~ ~ h t ~ ~y r~ g ~ ~~ t w ~ '~. b . ~ ~ ~` b b ~1 `'f ti "1 ~ .~ ~ 1 b dJ $^ o ~ h .Z, ~ ~ M1 n e,. ~ 1J rSd+r ~ h ~ ~ ~ V s s~ > ~ l~. ~ ~b w- w wu '(7 ~~ , G~` ~~ ~f ~ _ 'v~ _ ., ~_ Q f ~ ~.. _ rj ° rJ ~.. a , r a /~ , J `~ V • STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves Date: 03-23-04 Email: jreeves@cstx.gov Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Conditional Use Permit -Use & Site for the Wright StealthTelecommunications Tower consisting of approximatly 3.175 acres located on the north side of Krenek Tap Road just east of Dartmouth Drive.. Applicant: Mike Crain (Market Director), Fossil Creek Land Company Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit as submitted. Item Summary: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a stealth telecommunications tower designed as an (80) eighty-foot flag pole. Staff is unable to support the proposed stealth design with the property in its current context. The subject property is developed with a single family home. Staff encouraged the applicant to propose some alternative designs that would fit in more with the surrounding environment. • Com rehensive Plan Consid p eratrons. The subject property and surrounding properties are shown on the Land Use Plan as Single Family Medium Density, with the property to the south across Krenek Tap Road as Civic Center Property (known as the City Center property). The subject property is currently zoned R-4 Multi-Family, and developed as a single family residence. The property to the west is zoned R-4 Multi-Family and undeveloped. To the south across Krenek Tap Road is undeveloped Single Family, to the north is R-3 Townhouse developed as townhouse and duplex, and to the east is R-4 Multi-Family developed as an apartment complex. Again, with the subject property in its current context and the. majority of the surrounding properties being undeveloped, staff is recommending denial of this request. Item Background: The subject property was annexed into the City of College Station city limits in 1971. The property is currently not platted, however the platting process has been initiated. WTF Considerations: In addition to the standard CUP guidelines (described below), the Commission shall consider the following additional factors when • determining whether to recommend a CUP for a telecommunication facility: Created on 3/17/2004 4:34 PM R: U 1 TL TRI PZLTRI PRODI PZ20041 F+00p9358. DOC • Height of the proposed tower, surrounding topography and tree coverage and foliage as they relate to: a. Skyline impact, examining whether the proportions of the structure appears to dominate or blend in with the surrounding environment and b. Shadow impact, whether or not the proposed tower will cast shadows that would prevent the reasonable use of enjoyment or surrounding properties. • Design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness. • Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. • Economic impact on adjacent and nearby properties. • Proposed ingress and egress. • Availability of suitable alternatives and/or existing support structures. Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body to the City Council, whom has final authority over the Conditional Use Permit and associated site plan. The options regarding the use permit are: to recommend: 1. Approval as submitted; 2. Approval with conditions relating to specific site characteristics or with time limitations; • 3. Denial with specified reasons for denial; or the Commission may 4. Table; or, 5. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Copy of Site Plan 4. Letter of Opposition NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s):The Eagle; 03-16-04 and 04-13-04 Advertised Commission Hearing Date: 04-01-04 Advertised Council Hearing Date: 04-29-04 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 31 Response Received: One letter in opposition has been submitted as of date of the staff report. C7 Created on 3/17/2004 4:34 PM 2 R:WTLTRIPZLTRIPRODIPZ20041 POOOg358.DOC • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO. DiATE SUBMITTED Major Wireless Telecommunications Facilities CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT /SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION Minimum Requirements 3300.00 application. processing. and notification fee 3200.00 Site Plan Review Fee (includes 3 staff reviews). 3200.00 Development Pem~it Appticaaon Fee if applicable. 3600.00 Public Infrastructure Inspection Fee if applicable. (This fee is payable if oonstnrdion of a public waterline. sewerline. sidewalk. street or drainage faalities is involved.) Eleven (11) copies of sibs plan that meet requirements for WTF's as destxibed in Section 6.3.Q of the Unified Development Ordnance and includes requirements for site plan proposals as Nsted on the attached sheet. This site plan wiQ go to City Staff for n3view, after which Eleven (11) copies of the revised site plan wiY be required. Detar7ed e>~lenation of proposed use including the location. type. and height of the proposed facility, antidpated traffic, number of employees, etc. Addiblonal requirements Crated on fogowing Page. C7 Debe of Required Preapplication~yConfenence: Heigh of Transmission Tower: ?4 ~ I NAME OF PROJECT _ ADDRESS ~Q.3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPLICANT (Primary Contact for the " '"" "'7l ''~~"""'1~"°`~ "*"'~ ruoa Name 1" 1ik>z ~1v jy~ )~ ((// street address city E-Mail Address "~/ zm code Phone Number ~ oZ °)o~S Q~_,Fax Number OZgI ~~h OZI 5 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name .~ Street Address City _S~ E-Mafi Addt~ Phone Number • 6193/03 ~ zip code ~~fS y~ 1 of 3 • ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Name ~ Street Address City _~ E-Mail Address Phone Number ~_ Zip code ~i S~ y Fax Number (J ]z02 ~ 3 q ~ ~h oZ. OTHER CONTACTS (Please specify type of contact, i.e. project manager, potential buyer, bcai contact, etc.) Name Street Address City E-Mail Address State Zap Code Phone Number Fax Number • PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY CURRENT ZONING OF PROPERTY __ jl y I vierily tlmt ail cf the won contained in this application fa true and oorted, IF APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A POWER OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER. Signature of owner, Agent or Applies _~Ig/a~Y Date • ~n~ 2of3 • for MAJOR VYTFs must include: • An inventory of the applicants existing and future towers that area wither within the City, the City's ETJ, or within at least 1 mile of the City's boundary where the ETJ does not extend that far, as outlined in 6.3.Q.8.b Application Procedures. The owner must have on file with the City a master list of all existing tower structures owned a controlled by the owner. The linear separation distance from other transmission towers within cone-mile radius of the proposed tower site. The linear separation distance form all residentially-zoned properties, residential structures and applicable thoroughfares as outlined in Section 6.3.Q.4.b, Proximity to Major Thoroughfares, within 500 feet of the proposed tower. A visual impact anaysis, presented either as cobr photo simulations. showing the proposed site of the WTF, as outlined in Section 6.3.Q.8.e Application Procedures. Affidavit confirming compliance with FAA regulations, FCC regulations and regulations of any other agency of the Federal Government with the authority to regulate telecommunication facilities. Grid Plan (propagation map) of the service area for existing and future structures for a period of not less than 5 years. The submission should include a map showing the "search ring" that was required for siting the Proposed taality. A letter addressed to the City declaring an intent and willingness to construct a proposed tower that would aaow additional service providers to locate on the tower. Documentation of need and alternatives according to Section 6.3.Q.10 Documentation of Need and Alternatives. • 6/1303 3of3 ~ -~ Sprint. February 19, 2004 Bridgette George Assistant Development Manager City of College Station, Texas 1101 Texas Ave. South College Station, TX 77840 Ms. George, SPRINT PCS Division Houston 15413 Vantage Parkway West Houston, TX. 77032 Phone (281) 618-8418 Faz (281) 618-8486 PCS (936) 443-4855 Regarding the requirement that applications for a Major WTF must include a grid plan showing future site placements for a peri~~t less than 5 years: Sprint its gt5 s' lacement based on two primary factors including; census and demographics info m the consumer feedback and complaints. As ~ ,predicting future municipal growth and future growth areas are very di urately. For Sprint to base future site placement on this would not only be ex a great number of cases would prove to be ineffective. The od S found that effectively addresses site placement is consumer feedback and complain As S customer feedback, these remarks and locations are logged. As RF Engineers try and det t to place a site, these logs are reviewed and from a review of these logs and radio propagation studies, a "Search Ring" is issued that best fits with Sprint's existing network. Often, even radio propagation studies alone cannot take into account changes in traffic from midday to rush hour or seasonal changes of foliage. This utilization of consumer feedback makes future plans for site placement in any given municipality or area impossible to predict. Sincerely, ~~ Patricia Towery Sr. Property Specialist Sprint PCS • • • Sprint. February 19, 2004 Bridgette George Assistant Development Manager City of College Station, Texas 1101 Texas Ave. South College Station, TX 77840 Ms. George, SPRINT PCS Division Houston 15413 Vantage Parkway West Houston, TX. 77032 Phone (281) 618-8418 Fax (281)618-8486 PCS (936) 443-4855 Regarding allowing and cooperating with other wireless carriers to allow collocation on Sprint owned towers: This 1 s intendr~ a City of College Station that all Wireless Transmission Facilities built by S ~ built for collocation as required by article 6 section 6.3.Q 9. othee City of We d activ~oun;ge other telecommunication companies to collocate on these strictures. Thank you for y ration. Please do not hesitate to call if you would like to discuss these issues further. Sincerely, ~~ Patricia Towery Sr. Property Specialist Sprint PCS • ~~ -~j ~ f OSSiI CR~~EK f`~~ Primary: 832-928.0100 • I .. - LMI1D CO~f~.11~1/ pnngaTX7T 89e Office:281-516-2883 FAX: 281-516-2158 MfMO TO: CC: FROM: DATE: RE: • Bridgette George Michael Crain February 19, 2004 Explanation and details of use for a proposed Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 903 ICrenek Tap Road Sprint Site designation: H059XC439A (Wright -College Station) City of College Station fossil Creek land Company The purpose of this letter is to explain the proposed use and details of a Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility proposed for 903 Krenek Tap Road. The proposed property location of this facility, whose physical address is 903 Krenek Tap Road, is located in an "R4 -Multi-Family ResidentiaP' zoning designation. • The property directly adjacent and in a Northerly direction from the proposed site is designated "R4". • The property in a southerly direction approx. 165' away from the proposed site is designated "R4". • The property in an Easterly direction across ICrenek Tap Road, approx. 116' from the proposed site is designated "Rl". • The property in a Westerly direction approx. 600' away from the proposed site is designated "R3" The proposed site will be used by Sprint PCS as a Wireless Telecommunications Facility and will be constructed with a single "Monopole" structure and will be of a "Stealth Tower" characteristic as defined in Section 11.2 Terms of the Cit~of College Station. Unified Development Ordinance. • Specifically, the structure will be "camouflaged" as an 80' tall flagpole. • The dimensions of the facilities (equipment area) will be 30' x 50'. The surrounds of this facility will also be of a "Stealth Technology or Facility" characteristic as defined in Section 11.2 Terms of the Cit~of College Station. Unified Development Ordinance and will be designed to blend with the surrounding development and future development by using masonry like material on the exterior walls, wrought-iron entrance gate into the facilities and landscaping as required per Section 7.5 (landscaninQ and tree protection) of Article 7 of the City of College Station General Development Standards. The facilities wilt be designed to allow for 1 additional Wireless Carrier to collocate upon the structure and within the facilities as further attested to and explained in the attached statement from Sprint 1'CS. Typically there will be 2 vehicles and employees per month that access and visit this site. The visits are made primarily for adjustments to equipment and for general maintenance of the facilities. Exceptions to this would be rare, but may include such things as power outages or heavy storms that may require an additional visit to check or further adjust equipment. Feel free to contact me with further questions or concerns. • -~~ fOSSII CR~~K ~::` ~.. ' Primary: 832.928-0100 ~~. :. LAND COMPANY Sp~fngaiTX n 89e Office: 281-516-2883 • I . FAX:281-516-2158 • MEMO TO: CC: FROM: DATE: RE: Bridgette George Michael Crain February 19, 2004 "Documentation of Needs and Alternatives" for a proposed Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 903 ICrenek Tap Road Sprint Site designation: H059XC439A (Wright -College Station) City of College Station fossil Creek land Company The purpose of this letter is to depict and detail the research that took place prior to choosing the property located at 903 Krenek Tap Road for a proposed Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility Kit ~Cff~ During the initial "Search Area Scrub" it was quickly determined that there are no towers or structures available for collocation within or near the search area with the exceptions noted directly below. The following City owned property and structures within or near Central Park were considered: 1. Existing ~50' Softball Field Light in Central Park near Central Park Drive and Krenek Tap. 2. Existing ~65' Flagpole in Central Park 3. Existing ~72' Power Pole along Hwy. 6 Access Road near Krenek Tap • Even though the sites noted are not in the search area, efforts were made to pursue City Owned Property, (a) to avoid filing for a Conditional Use Permit and (b) to utilize the only structures near the search area. After a meeting with Charlie Shear it was determined that trying to pursue a lease such as this on park property, and as Mr. Shear informed us, because of Texas State I.aw_governing Public Park property, this would be a very long drawn out process. As Mr. Shear further stated, the process would likely have many legal hurdles and possible setbacks that could stop the process altogether, including a public vote to approve the encumbrance of the park property with this lease. If final approval from the City did come, the structure would be required to be dedicated to the City and the structure would become City owned property. Because of the risky nature of this proposal and expense involved with proposals and Sprints legal fees, and because of the timelines to reach approval, this was determined to not be a viable option for Sprint. The Power Pole near Krenek Tap was determined by Radio Frequency Propagation studies to be • too far from the desired coverage objective. The City of College Station Public Service Center near King Cole Drive was also determined by Radio Frequency Propagation studies to be too far from the desired coverage objective. Regarding other locations and properties considered: The eastern portion of the search area included several undeveloped properties. Contacts were made to these property owners to ascertain interest as noted below. 1. ICaochinski Property: a. After conversing with Mr. ICapchinski it was determined that The City of College Station was in negotiations to purchase the property along ICrenek Tap Road. Mr. ICapchinski inquired to the City as to the possibility of Sprint leasing a small portion of the property for this purpose, it was quickly determined that this would not work. No further action was taken. 2. Beautiful Savior Lutheran Churchl: a. Discussion began with church at this location, however it was determined that a new Pastor was coming in and it was not something they wished to pursue. • Page 2 Of 4 Needs aad Alterative Letter for propo.ea wTF at 903 Knael~ Tap Road • 3. Raw land south of Dartmouth and west of Krenek Ta a. 7.4 acres of undeveloped land: The property was outside of the search area and determined to be too far away from the desired coverage area. 4. Raw land north of Dartmouth and west of Krenek Tap: a. 8.98 acres of undeveloped land: The owner of record for this property is David Bradley Dean of Frisco, TX. Numerous attempts to contact went unanswered. Pursuit of the current landlord more feasible logistically. Property is zoned R4 and similar to chosen site otherwise. The central and northern portion of the search area was largely high-density residential including 3 separate apartment complexes and more than 6 square blocks of duplexes with an R-3 zoning designation (Southwest Crossing and Eastmark Phase 2). Because of the limited space availability on these properties and the number of individual families that would be in very close proximity it was not feasible to pursue a lease site through these properties. This included the area west and east of Southwest Parkway and primarily north of Dartmouth Drive. The far western portion of the search area was almost exclusively single family residential with a zoning designation of Rl & R2. This included the area west of Southwest Parkway and south of • Dartmouth Drive. Numerous visits and hours of research into this area were made by Property Specialists and RF Engineers, and various methods were utilized to ascertain the viability of this location including, radio propagation studies, which tests signal outputlmput from a specific location, and as shown on the included maps. Fossil Creek Land Company researched this area from June 2003 to present and prior to that SBA Sites began research for this site beginning from the Search Area issue date of 12/23/2002. Based on radio propagation studies, the lack of collocation or other viable raw land options in or near the search ring, the subject sites "Stealth" nature helping to mitigate any negative impact on residences, and the fact that we having a willing landlord makes the current location the only clear choice. Thank you for your consideration and time in this matter. • Page 3 of 4 Needs aad Altereative [.otter for proposed VVTF at 903 Kreaek Tap Read • • /~~ ,:. ~, ~: ~ O.s mta radus from ~ ~ ,- ,;: ~" ~. o.soo m Page 4 of 4 Needs asd Altereative Letter ter proposed WTF at 903 Krenelc Tip Rosd ~ ~ ~ 7A M Q 7 f~ Q ~ OJ R'i 0 ~ ~ O 6£OSL SHX31 ~JNIA2il ~~ ~ x _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' Q 0. p Z ~ LO£ 311(1S v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~'~ ~ F- H ~ ~ m 3ARIQ 341S213AIa 0£05 ~ ~o < ~ R ~ ~ = N Y ~ cpj ~ ~ = r ~~ ~a;a; z m ~ ~W ZNN ~ N ~ ~ 45 S S CZ „., F m p W ~~ W H O y = N .sue .~urrds 3 ~ J o y -~ a a s s ~ ~ ~ ~' = a JO ~~°° p a o v v V i ~ ~j ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ I ~ ~ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~i~ ~ $s~ ~ s~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~1b~d ~~1N~~ CM~iI iOiD Q1MOY rVt ~~DI W Z Z O 7~ m ~ n _+ a +'1 ~- 0 .tr.YIL ~~ ~~ ~~ 1 ~ ~~ ~q ~~ o~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ g~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~~~ .~ ~~~ o~ ~ ~~ ~ ~• • ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~8 ~3 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ /-E 1~ 4--- ~,~----- 3 :rr~~ { Wl d d ~~~ ~~ ~ iIOZ TA1NiOG7i1 O1 .Y-.h91 YQ 6 ~~ pp 4 ~~ + • - + • + • • + • + • • • • • • - • • • + + + + • + • r r + • • - + • + + . • • . • • • + + • • • - • • + + • a a • • • • • + • • • + + f • • • + • + • • • • • • • • + + • • .....• • • • • • - + • • ~- ~~ II M 1 I I a • 1 4 R u 1 • r + r z ~ M Z ~ ~ ~ °~~ ~ j ,~ O 6EOBL S\/X31 'OJNIA211 <J ~ x _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' Q a O Z ~ oc DOE 311f1S v~ d ~ o o ~ F- ~- ~ i= =O ~ m 3ARIU 341SZ13A12i 0£05 ~ ~o ' ~ ~ ~ = N Y ~ V ~ ~~j ~ N s ~ s ~ ~~ ~~y~~>; Z m ~ ~W ZNV~ ~ z ~ .. ,. ~ 4 Pa ~, m D W ~~ WHO y< ~ N v~ ~~€P v Z w p W~ ~ x .sad' utrd ~- ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J M~~ y ST- o~~0 3 & ~ a o ~~ ., ~_ a o v v V ~. .,o w V ..~ V V ~I • 1 t • t 1 • ` VI~~• I I • I t 1 •• .~ ~@ `.Y v , • ~ J O • V `` + °~ ~~ + ' n ® ~~~ ,v, vp ' SSS y ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~_ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~Q ~~k 3 ~~ ~~~~ 7 ' ~ ~~o ~~ I ~~ r y i~ r g $ $ ~ Q g 4 s z ~j 3~ n O ~~ n ~~ fr K ~~ 'F r(P © d s • ~ .. • • z • City of College Station Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue South P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Attn: Susan Hazlett Re: Letter of 3-11-2004 Subject: Consideration of a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -USE & SITE request for 903 Krenek Tap Road To Whom It May Concern: I am a property owner at 2517 Crosstimbers. Since I will out of the country during your public hearing vn the above subject, I want to voice my objection to the construction of any communication towers so near a housing area. Not only does it become an "eye sore," it has a negative impact on adjacent property values. 1 do not wish to be subjected to the lowering of my property value in order for such a facility to be constructed near this multifamily area. I am sure there are other areas available that are not in the immediate vicinity of housing communities. KeB~~ / `~ avid Harwell Homeowner • • AGENDA ITEM No. 7 Rezoning • Krenek Tap Road R S ; ; • ~;k e ; _ _ c R e "` ~ : _ ~ , _ a ~ •' __ a ' e o _ _ y ~ _ _ 7Z 1 Q - • - 4 mrsy _ ~ a Z '•- _^ - {~ ~' w ^ ~ • ~ L • S = • ,~ ! a !' i • • ! ~ i ~ l O rt A • ~ h C A• d _ * _ i * i r i= J X ~ ~~„ Vr"0 ~ ~F q .»~''' - U ~ ~ e .' ~ ~ a ~ ~' / ~ _ - _v a ~ `~~'~~ ~ a c c a ~ :~ ~ N r,,, r :s~: ~ :. €'s 'a i~-:~ e a r 64:'• • r } .- S M •% V ~ ~ ' t a W l • a t • e '• O • • i W • • a 4 ~L :~~ a '~ : • Q ~~:~:. s ~~ ;:q. . i i r S C L +~ t iSi~ ~ ~~i~ei~i;:: `~ i f • `~ Y €~`•: :;~,:: W Z _! W i(i~ylk,i c • ~y Y R :~'Kr~~~~~~~~~4~~~~Y~ 4 •^ ;:psi e_ie ~ ~.*; _ ci r ! V s ssssisi sii~ ~ F ~i~ ~ ~ L ~ ~~_ • w N _ V~ s e W r: t; _ e _ • ~ s~ ~ ~ .a • e ~ ~ ° rt, • • g ~ ~ .. m t ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ u d ' , w ' • ;~ t ~, • f~ • • • `~, The Ci of `I Cole a Station Texas \/ g Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Starion, TX 77842 (979) 764-3500 www.ci.college-station.tx.us March 24, 2004 MEMORANDUM • • TO: Planning & Zoning FROM: Jane R. Kee, City RE: Public Hearing, Disc Road Overlay district Consideration of applying the Krenek Tap At your last meeting you recommended approval of the Krenek Tap overlay regulations. That item will go to City Council April 8`~. This item is for your consideration to apply the overlay to those properties along Krenek Tap Road. This rezoning will go before the City Council on Apri129~'. The overlay zoning district, as you will recall, addresses the views along Krenek as properties develop in the future. The overlay addresses the front facades of structures and does not allow parking to be seen along the Krenek Tap frontage. Existing zoning remains in place and all existing uses will still be permitted with the exception that duplexes will not be permitted along the corridor. The Commission voted to add language that will allow flexibility for existing structures. This language has been added to the draft moving on to Council. It reads as follows: 1. Architectural Design: All building facades facing Krenek Tap Road shall have architectural treatments similar and complimentary to the front fagade of the building. All exterior walls visible from the public ROW shall meet be finished with one or more of the following materials: brick, native stone, cast stone, textured concrete masonry units, fiber/cement board, solid wood planking, stucco or synthetic stucco. Metal siding is prohibited on all exterior walls. There shall be no flat roofs. Use of alternative materials may be approved by the Design Review Board, if such materials meet or exceed the standards herein. Home of Texas A&M University Letters to all individual property owners within the overlay area and those within 200 feet of the • overlay area were notified. I received one inquiry as of this writing from an owner within the 200 foot notification area. He had no concerns. Sincerely, Jane R, Kee, AICP - City Planner, City of College Station Attached: Draft Overlay regulations with language change requested by P&Z Area Map • • ORDINANCE NO. Page 3 EXHIBIT '~A" That Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 2.4.D.2 Design Review Board "Powers and Duties" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended to read as follows: - 2. Design District and Overlay District Review The Design Review Board shall approve or deny building and sign materials and colors in any designated design district, and shall approve or deny alternate building or fence materials and fence height in the Krenek Overlay District, as specified within this UDO. That Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 5.8, "Overlay Districts," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended by adding Section 5.8.C., "Krenek Overlay" to read as follows: C. Krenek Tap Corridor Overlay District (KO) • The purpose of this overlay is to provide for consistent development of office, retail, and residential uses in the area of the new City Centre Complex. The City Centre Complex is located on the south side of Krenek Tap Road, and will contain several municipal and public facilities having high quality urban design characteristics. This overlay, along with all other applicable requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), shall apply to all properties on the north and south sides of Krenek Tap Road. Uses: Permitted uses shall be those as established in the underlying zoning districts with the exception that duplex dwelling units are not allowed anywhere in the overlay district. Design Standards: The following standards apply to all development, except single family residential development, along the Krenek Tap Corridor in addition to other design standards contained within the UDO. 1. Parking: No parking or circulation aisle shall be located between a building and the adjoining right-of-way of Krenek Tap Road. Where no building exists and parking is to be installed adjacent to a right-of-way, there shall be a 30' • setback from the right of way line to the parking pavement, within which Jsb:ldeve ser~/anelctty centre102-20-04 ordamendment-create overlay-jan.doc 3/24/04 ORDINANCE NO. Page 4 • a three foot (3') high screen of shrubs, fencing wall or earthen berm shall be installed. 2. Architectural Design: All building facades facing Krenek Tap Road shall have architectural treatments similar and complimentary to the front fagade of the building. All exterior walls visible from the public ROW shall meet be finished with one or more of the following materials: brick, native stone, cast stone, textured concrete masonry units, fiber/cement board, solid wood planking, stucco or synthetic stucco. Metal siding is prohibited on all exterior walls. There shall be no flat roofs. Use of alternative materials may be approved by the Design Review Board, if such materials meet or exceed the standards herein. • 3. Reflective Glass: For non-residential buildings no more than fifty percent (50%) of any facade facing Krenek Tap Roadway may include reflective glass. For the purposes of this ordinance, reflective glass shall be defined as glass having a reflectance of greater than ten percent (10%). 6. Fencing: Any fencing visible from the public designated roadway or public area shall be decorative wrought iron or tubular steel, a picket fence or alternative similar products approved by the Design Review Board. Fences along the right-of-way shall not exceed four feet (4') in height unless otherwise allowed by the Design Review Board. The materials and height limitation referenced above do not apply to fences required for screening as specified in this UDO. 4. Sign Regulations: Only attached building signs and low profile signs meeting the requirements of the UDO shall be permitted. Building signs shall not obscure other building elements such as windows, cornices, decorative details, etc. Design Standards: • The following standards apply specifically to single family and townhome residential development along the Krenek Tap Corridor in addition to other Jslo:ldeve_ser~/ane~tty centre102-20-04 ordamendnrent-create overlay-Jan.doc 3/2/04 • ORDINANCE NO. Page 5 design standards contained within the UDO applicable to single family development. 1. Front Setback: Residential lots adjacent to Krenek Tap right of way shall be oriented so that the front facades of individual units or dwellings face Krenek Tap Road, if there is sufficient property frontage to do so. The front setback of these units shall not exceed fifteen feet (15'). This does not preclude residential street access to Krenek or pedestrian access. 2. Front porches: Every front facade visible from Krenek Tap Road shall contain a front porch extending along at least one half of the front facade. These porches shall be large enough and useable for outdoor seating and not solely decorative. • C7 3. Parking: No driveways or locations for parking shall be allowed in the yard areas facing Krenek Tap Road or along Krenek Tap Road itself. Rear parking and access shall be required. 4. Architectural Design: All exterior walls visible from the public ROW shall be finished in the following materials: brick, native stone, cast stone, textured concrete masonry units, fiber/cement board, solid wood planking, stucco or synthetic stucco. Metal siding is prohibited on all exterior walls. Alternative materials may be approved by the Design Review Board, if the alternative materials meet or exceed the standards of the materials listed above. The primary material shall not exceed seventy-five percent (75%) of the fa5ade. The fagade calculation excludes windows and doors. There shall be no flat roofs. Jsb:ldive ser~ianelcJty ctnlrc102-20-04 ordaneendmenl-crcale overlay-Jan.doc 3/24/04 AGENDA ITEM NO. B Land Use Plan Cleanup Project • • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning 8 Zoning Commissioners FROM: Trey Fletcher, AICP -Senior Planner DATE: March 23, 2004 RE: Land Use Plan Cleanup The purpose of this item is to reflect current conditions and correct mapping mistakes that may occur. The changes are not considered material, but are generally administrative in nature and are summarized with explanations on the following sheets. A "Summary of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classifications" and reference maps are also attached. • • Summary of Proposed Changes Generally, the areas are described as follows: Area L1: Location -Intersection of Raymond Stotzer Parkway (FM 60) and Kemp Road in the ETJ Action -Remove Retail Neighborhood and Institutional designations The basis of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in this area was generated when HOK was tasked with updating the Comprehensive Plan in 1997. The aforementioned designations are shown in TxDOT rights-of-way and should be removed. - - Area L2: This area is no longer under consideration for proposed changes. Area L3: Location -Chimney Hitl Drive between Arguello Drive and Hearthstone Circle Action -Replace Retail Regional with Single-family Residential Medium Density These parcels along the east side of Chimney Hill Drive are improved with garden homes. The Regional Retail designation even as a future land use would not be appropriate as shown because it would not be compatible with the established single-family residential area to the west. Although the proposed change furthers the commercial /residential adjacency, the property along Tarrow consists of administrative, professional and general office uses. Area L4: Location -Southwest comer of Texas Avenue and Park Place Action -Replace Institutional with Retail Regional This area has recently developed with commercial uses, among them, HE6, fuel center and an out parcel. An elevated water storage tank was removed and relocated behind the HEB site. Location -Northeast comer of Texas Avenue and Holleman Drive Adios -Replace WPC District with Retail Regional In 1996, this area was amended out of the Wolf Pen Creek District. Location -Southeast comer of Holleman Drive and Dartmouth Drive Adios -Replace Residential Attached with WPC District Formerly proposed for the hotel/conference center, the new ice rink is under construction here. Two additional parcels were added to the WPC District in 1998. • Summary of Proposed Changes Page 2 of 3 Area L5: Location - In the vicinity of Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818) and Dowling Road • Action -Replace TAMU with Industrial RlitD The TAMU designation is typically only allocated to land under ownership of Texas AFtM University or the TAMU System. Thus, these two parcels are proposed for Industrial/R£tD to be compatible with the Land Use Plan designation to the east and activities on adjacent TAMU property. Action -Remove Wellbom Corridor Study and replace with Industrial R8D Recently, SH 40 was removed from the Thoroughfare Ptan in areas affected by the Area 1 Small Area Plan. TxDOT has no plans to construct SH 40 west of FM 2154. These actions have rendered the Wellbom Road Corridor Study defunct. Action -Replace Institutional with Single-family Residential Low Density The Institutional designation was created as a "floating" zone for this area west of FM 2818 and FM 2154 based on future development activity. The location of this designation is already platted and developed as single-family residential low density. Area L6: Location -Northwest comer of Graham and Victoria roads Action -Replace Retail Neighborhood with Industrial R8D This portion of Graham Road consists of predominately light industrial land uses. The subject area is developed as auto repair business. • Location - In the vicinity of Victoria Road and Vienna Drive Action -Remove Neighborhood Retail and Institutional and replace with SF Residential Medium Density "Floating" Institutional and Neighbofiood Commercial designations are not appropriate for the area as shown and should be removed. Location -Marta Street at Frederick Court Action -Remove Neighbofiood Retail and replace with SF Residential Medium Density Neighborhood Commercial designation is not appropriate for the area as shown and should be removed. Location -End of Victoria Avenue and end of Westfield Drive Action -Remove SF Residential Medium Density and replace with Park Parks are shown on the Land Use Plan; recently parks have been dedicated in these locations. (Edelweiss Garters Park and Westfield Park) • Summary of Proposed Changes Page 3 of 3 Area L7: Location - In the vicinity of Graham Road and Westfield Drive • Action -Remove "floating" Institutional and replacing with SF Residential Medium Density Action -Remove SF Residential Medium Density and replace with Institutional on Cypress Grove Intermediate School site and additional CSISD property The "floating" institutional designation is no longer necessary. Cypress Grove Intermediate School was built on Graham Road. The adjacent parcel to the south was originally proposed for the sixth elementary school and remains under CSISD ownership. Location -Northwest corner of Barron Road and Newport Lane Action -Remove "floating" Institutional and replacing with SF Residential Medium Density "Floating" Institutional designation is not appropriate for the area as shown and should be removed. This area is developed as Westfield Village. Area L8: Location -Southeast comer of Greens Prairie Road and Lakeway Drive Action -Remove Institutional and replace with Office and SF Residential Low Density "Floating" Institutional designation is not appropriate for the area as shown and should be removed. An office use and Stone Forest Subdivision are developed here. Location -Southeast comer of Lakeway Drive and Parkview Drive Action -Remove SF Residential Medium Density and replace with Institutional and Park Pebble Creek Elementary was built at the comer of Lakeway and Parkview drives and Pebble Creek Park was developed on the adjacent site to mutually benefit the school and • the neighborhood. • Summary of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classifications According to the College Station Development Guide, explanations for residential uses, • non-residential uses, and undeveloped uses are provided as follows: Residential Uses • Rural Density -This classification mixes very low density residential development with agricultural and support uses, with very large average lot sizes (5 acres and higher). This density is similar to the rural development occurring in the City's ETJ and in unincorporated Brazos County. • ResidentiaVLow Density - This classification contains exclusively single-family detached residential development that ranges between '/z to 3 acres/dwelling unit and greater. "Residential/Low Density" developments are similar to existing residential "ranchettes" such as Nantucket and agricultural development in the City's ETJ. • ResidentiaVMedium Density -This classification also contains exclusively single-family detached residential developments, ranging in density from 3 to 6 dwelling units/acre. "Residential/Medium Density" developments are similar to Woodcreek, Windwood, and other existing subdivisions along the East Bypass. • Residential/Hi~h Density -This classification also contains exclusively single-family detached residential developments, with densities ranging from 7 to 9 dwelling units/acre. "Residential/High Density" developments are similar to existing residential development in the Southwood Valley area. • • Residential Attached -This classification contains exclusively multifamily residential developments, with densities ranging from 10 to 20 dwelling units/acre. "Multifamily Residential" developments are similar to existing apartment, duplex, and quadplex residential developments in Southwood Valley and other areas of the City. Non-Residential Uses • Neighborhood Retail -Areas permitting neighborhood-scale development of tax- generating developments such as small retail centers, service commercial, restaurants, etc. These uses are generally dependent on good access to local arterials. The small retail centers in Northgate and Southside are examples of this use • Regional Retail -Areas permitting regional-scale development of tax-generating developments such as retail centers, service commercial, restaurants, etc. These uses are generally dependent on good access to highways and major arterials. Post Oak Mall is an example of this use. • Office -Areas permitting medium-scale development of tax-generating developments such as office parks, corporate offices, and office lease space. These uses are usually dependent on good access to highways and local arterials. • IndustriaVResearch & Development -Areas permitting medium to large-scale development of tax-generating developments such as industrial/RftD parks, technology • centers, clean manufacturing, and assembly/distribution. These developments are very dependent upon good access to highways, rail lines, and/or airports. • Mixed Use -Areas which encourage mixing of compatible land uses such as • retail/commercial, office, parks, multifamily, and attached single-family. These uses are developed together in a manner that allows interaction between the uses and that allows each use to support the other uses. The residential uses provide the patrons for the office and commercial uses. The layout of these land uses must take into consideration pedestrian linkages, landscape buffers between the uses, shared site improvements and vehicular circulation. The success of these mixed use areas is directly related to the sensitive master planning of the site layout. • Redevelopment -Currently-developed areas which will experience redevelopment as a result of increased land value. Redevelopment will occur as mixed use developments as described previously. Mixed-use redevelopment areas are projected for areas close to the University, such as Northgate. • Public/Institutional -Schools, churches, hospitals, and other quasi-public uses. These are usually neighborhood-scale developments from 5 to 10 acres and use local streets for access. • Civic Center -The area dedicated to a new civic complex to house such tax-exempt uses as City Hall, police/fire station, municipal courts, etc. Civic centers typically emphasize a "campus" environment .which fosters pedestrian access between buildings. Vehicular access is more dependent upon local arterials. • Texas A £t M University -Areas which are owned by the University, some of which are currently developed such as the campus and airport, while others are undeveloped • agricultural areas. Undeveloped • Parks/Open Space -Lands dedicated to public recreational uses. • Floodplain/Greenbelts -The 100-year floodplain as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), plus additional areas reserved for open space. • Agricultural -Lands that are in use for and anticipated to remain in agricultural use. • Rights-of-Way/Easements - Lands that are reserved for public access and maintenance, such as roadways, drainage easements, utility easements, etc. • No Development -Areas that are not in active use for residential, non-residential, or agricultural purposes. • n U • Comprehensive Plan Cleanup AREA L2 AREA 2 is no longer under consideration. N ~/\ \i~y~~.~G I I Comprehensive Plan Cleanup /~ ~ AREA L3 r~ ORIGINAL PMt UPDATE FUG; Legend Comprehensive Plan -Land Use LAYER AaM ~ crvlc CENTER ~ FIOODPLAINISTREAMs - pAUSTRIAL Rd0 IMXED - PARK - PLANNEDDEVELOPMENi INSTTiUT10WAL - R®EVELAPMENT - RETNL REGIONAL - RE&DENTULLATTACHED &f. RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM S.f. RESIOENTUL HIGH S.F. RESIDENTUL LOW RURAL ® trrirorW ~~ WE1180RN OORRIDOR STUDY ' ~ ~ ~ WPCOVERIAY OISTftlCT Comprehensive Plan Cleanup AREA L4 ORIGINAL UPDATE ~~.. Legend Comprehensive Plan -Land Use LAYER NLM - CMC CENTER - fIOODPLAINISTREAMS - INDUSTRUL R30 MIXED RETNL NEIGHBORFIOOD - OFFICE PARK - F'UJINED DEVELOPMENT - MISTITUTIONAL - REDEVELAPMENi - RETNI REGKM1Al RESIDENTYIL ATTACHED S.F. RESIDENTIAL MEDIUI.1 8.F. RESDENTIAL HIGH 6.F. RESIDENTIAL LOW RURAL ® t~iorwl ~~ YIiEU.BOW7 CORRCOR STUDY ' ~ ~ WPC OVERLAY DISTRICT ~~ I~' ~I~I ..; ~~ <<e o,Qy '~O ~~ ~~~ . ~~~ Comprehensive Plan Cleanup AREA L6 ® ~~~ Legend Comprehensive Plan -Land Use LAYER AdM ~ _ CMC CENTER _ FLOOOPWNlSTREAMS MI>~D ORIGINAL ~`~`L~ RETAIL NEIGH80RHOOD OFFICE PARK - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - IPISTITUTIONAL ~~ - REDEVELOPMENT -RETAIL REGK)NAL RESIDENTIAL ATTACHED S.F. RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM S.F. RESIDENTIAL HIGH S.F. RESIDENTIAL LOW RURAL ®YaigibwW \~ WELLBORN CORRIDOR STUDY WPC OVERLAY DISTRICT ~~0 O~ _ ~~ UPDATE ., ~_. ,. ~i ~+'JSee Area L6 I r this parcel r~ ORIGINAL iee Area l.6 Dr this ICe i Fist UPDATE Comprehensive Plan Cleanup AREA L7 ~~~ Legend Comprehensive Plan -Land Use LAYER_ A8M - CNIC CENTER - FLOODPWNlSTREAMS - INDUSTRUIL R80 MI%ED RETAIL NEIGHBORHOOD - OFFICE - PARK - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT _ lISTiTUT10NAL - REDEVELOPMENT - RETAIL REGIONAL - RESIDENTIAL ATTACHED S.F. RESIDENTIAL MEDNJM S.F. RESIDENTIAL HIGH S.F. RESIDENTIAL LOW RURAL ® ~~ ~~ WELLBORN CORRIDOR STUDY WPC OVERLAY DISTRICT ~~:.,: N Feel ORIGINAL Comprehensive Plan Cleanup AREA L3 Legend Comprehensive Plan -Land Use LAYER A6M _ CIVIC CENTER - FLOODPLAIWSTREAMS ® INDUSTRIAL R3D MIXED '.:. RETNL NEIGHBORHOOD OFFK~ - PARK - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT _ INSTITUTIONAL - REDEVELOPMENT - RETNL REGIONAL _ RESIDENTNL ATTACHED S.F. RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM S.F. RESIDENTIAL HIGH S.F. RESIDENTIAL LOW RURAL ® tantil'°rW ~~ VYELLBORN CORRIDOR STUDY NPC OVERLAY DISTRICT U P DAT E I Comprehensive Plan Cleanup AREA L4 ORIGINAL UPDATE Legend Comprehensive Plan -Land Use LAYER A8M - GVIC CENTER - FLOODPLAIWSTREAMS INDUSTRIAL RdD MIXED RETAIL NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE PARK - PIANNEO DEVELOPMENT - INSTIT1JT10W1L - REDEVEIOPMENi - RETAIL REGIONAL - RESIDENTIAL ATTACHED S.F. RESIDENTULL MEDIUM S.F. RESIDENTIAL HIGH S.F. RESIDENTIAL LOW RURAL ® transifiorW ~~ WELLBORN CORRIDOR STUDY WPC OVERLAY DISTRICT ~~ ~~ "~ ~~~~.~ ~.~. ~~ ~~: ~~u ~ .~ ORIGINAL MITCHELL PKWY ' FM 2818 U P DAT E Legend Comprehensive Plan -Land Use LAYER A6M - CIVIC CENTER - FLOODPlA1WSTREAMS INDUSTRIAL R3D MIXED ...: RETNL NEIGHBORH000 - OFFICE _ PARK - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - INS7ITUTKNIAL - REDEVELOPMENT - RETNI REGIONAL _ RESIDENTIAL ATTACHED S.F. RESIDENTUL MEDIUM S.F. RESIDENML NIGH S.F. RESIDENTIAL LOW RURAL ® ~~~ VYELLBORN CORRIDOR STUDY !..III ~C ovERUr asrRlcT Comprehensive Plan Cleanup AREA L7 :Area thlS pi ORIGINAL Feet Legend Comprehensive Plan -Land Use LAYER A&M _ CNIC CENTER - FLOODPWWSTREAMS ® INDUSTRIAL R8D MIXED ~".~ RETAIL NEIGH80RHOOD - OFFICE - PARK - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTIONAL - REDEVELOPMENT - RETAIL REGIONAL - RESIDENTWL ATTACHED S.F. RESIDENTULL MEDIUM S.F. RESIDENTULL HIGH S.F. RESIDENTUIL lOW RURAL ® trarudional ~~ WELLBORN CORRIDOR STUDY (~ ~ WPC OVERLAY DISTRICT this L6 UPDATE ~~~/~ ~~~% \ ~