Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/07/2024 - Regular Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning Commission
College Station, TX Meeting Agenda Planning and Zoning Commission 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, TX 77840 Internet: www.microsoft.com/microsoft-teams/join-a-meeting Meeting ID: 279 783 445 779 | Passcode: RtFGtJ Phone: 833-240-7855 | Phone Conference ID: 291 547 031# The City Council may or may not attend this meeting. November 7, 2024 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers College Station, TX Page 1 Notice is hereby given that a quorum of the meeting body will be present in the physical location stated above where citizens may also attend in order to view a member(s) participating by videoconference call as allowed by 551.127, Texas Government Code. The City uses a third- party vendor to host the virtual portion of the meeting; if virtual access is unavailable, meeting access and participation will be in-person only. 1. Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Consider Absence Request. 2. Hear Visitors At this time, the Chairperson will open the floor to visitors wishing to address the Commission on issues not already scheduled on tonight's agenda. The visitor 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.) 3. Consent Agenda All matters listed under the Consent Agenda, are considered routine by the Commission and will be enacted by one motion. These items include preliminary plans and final plats, where staff has found compliance with all minimum subdivision regulations. All items approved by Consent are approved with any and all staff recommendations. Since there will not be separate discussion of these items, citizens wishing to address the Commission regarding one or more items on the Consent Agenda may address the Commission at this time as well. If any Commissioner desires to discuss an item on the Consent Agenda it may be moved to the Regular Agenda for further consideration. 3.1. Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes. Attachments: 1. October 17 2024 4. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission action. 5. Regular Agenda 5.1. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding waiver requests to the Unified Development Ordinance Section 8.4.C.7. ‘Cul-de-sac’, Section 8.4.E.1. ‘Blocks’, and Section 8.4.C.3.b. ‘Street Projections’ and presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a Page 1 of 38 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 November 7, 2024 Preliminary Plan for Arrowhead Village on approximately 46.6 acres of land, generally located south of the intersection of Arrington Road and Harper’s Ferry Road. Case #PP2024-000017. Sponsors: Jeff Howell Attachments: 1. Staff Report 2. Waiver Requests 3. Applicant’s Supporting Information 4. Aerial and Small Area Map 5. Preliminary Plan 6. CSISD Letter 5.2. Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 4, "Zoning Districts," Section 4.2 "Official Zoning Map," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundary from PDD Planned Development District to PDD Planned Development District to amend the concept plan for approximately 11 acres generally located at 424 Northpoint Crossing Drive. Case# REZ2024-000023 (Note: Final action of this item will be considered at the November 25, 2024 City Council Meeting - subject to change). Sponsors: Robin Macias Attachments: 1. Background Information 2. Aerial and Small Area Map 3. Existing Future Land Use Map 4. Rezoning map 5. Rezoning exhibit 6. Applicant's Supporting Information 7. Existing Concept Plan 8. Revised Concept plan 6. Informational Agenda 6.1. Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City. New Development Link: www.cstx.gov/newdev 6.2. Presentation and discussion regarding an update on items heard: • A rezoning of approximately 45 acres of land located at 600 Scott & White Drive from PDD Planned Development District to PDD Planned Development District to amend the Concept Plan. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on October 3, 2024 and voted (6-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on October 24, 2024 and voted (7-0) to approve the request. • An ordinance amendment regarding conditional use permits, the abandonment of nonconforming uses, and requiring conditional use permits for new and expanding bars, nightclubs, and taverns in the NG-1 Core Northgate and NG-2 Transitional Northgate zoning districts. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on October 3, 2024 and voted (6-0) to recommend approval of the amendment with the exception of conditional use permits being required for bars in NG-1 Core Northgate. The City Council heard this item on October 24, 2024 and voted (4-3) to approve the amendment as written. 6.3. Presentation and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings: • Thursday, November 14, 2024 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Open Meeting 6:00 p.m. Page 2 of 38 Planning and Zoning Commission Page 3 November 7, 2024 • Thursday, November 21, 2024 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ 6:00 p.m. • Monday, November 25, 2024 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Open Meeting 6:00 p.m. • Thursday, December 5, 2024 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ 6:00 p.m. 6.4. Discussion and review regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board and BioCorridor Board. • None 7. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items. A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting. 8. Adjourn. The Planning and Zoning Commission may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on the agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the website and at College Station City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on November 1, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. City Secretary This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations. Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun. "Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a Handgun that is Carried Openly." Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia. “Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre.” Page 3 of 38 October 17, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 6 Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting October 17, 2024 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairperson Melissa McIlhaney, Commissioners Bobby Mirza, Scott Shafer, and Warren Finch COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Marcus Chaloupka, Aron Collins, and Jason Cornelius COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Dennis Maloney and Elizabeth Cunha CITY STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning & Development Services Anthony Armstrong, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Molly Hitchcock, Transportation Planning Coordinator Jason Schubert, Long Range Planning Administrator Christine Leal, Land Development Review Administrator Robin Macias, Principal Planner Heather Wade, Senior Planner Jeff Howell, Staff Planner Bekha Blasingame, Graduate Engineer II Lindsey Pressler, Assistant City Attorney II Aaron Longoria, Administrative Support Specialist Kristen Hejny, and Lead Technology Services Specialist Lillian Wells 1. Call Meeting to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Consider Absence Request. Chairperson McIlhaney called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Hear Visitors No visitors spoke. 3. Consent Agenda 3.1 Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes. • September 19, 2024 Commissioner Shafer moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Commissioner Finch seconded the motion, the motion passed 4-0. 4. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda by Commission Action. No items were removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. 5. Regular Agenda 5.1 Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding waiver requests to the Unified Page 4 of 38 October 17, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 6 Development Ordinance Section 8.3.E.2.b. ‘Relation to adjoining street system’, Section 8.3.G.2.a. ‘Blocks’, Section 11.2 ‘Defined Terms’ - ‘Public Way’ and presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a Preliminary Plan for Culpepper At TAMU Subdivision on approximately 10.84 acres of land, generally located at the intersection of College Avenue and University Drive, specifically on the west side of University Drive. Case #PP2024-000009 Senior Planner Howell presented the waiver requests and preliminary plan to the Commission recommending approval stating that if the waivers are approved, the preliminary plan must also be approved. Commissioner Finch asked who would be responsible for maintaining the road. Senior Planner Howell stated that a property owner’s association (POA) will maintain the road. Commissioner Finch asked for the members of the POA. Senior Planner Howell stated that a POA has not yet been established, however one will be required to be established as part of the plat. Commissioner Mirza asked if there are any foreseen issues with reducing the sidewalk. Senior Planner Howell stated that the sidewalk is provided internal to the proposed development, and connectivity is still being provided. Commissioner Shafer asked if the sidewalk should continue to join College Avenue and Culpepper Drive. Senior Planner Howell stated that the applicant is proposing a crosswalk at Culpepper Drive, clarifying that the sidewalk on Culpepper Drive is on the south side of the adjacent development, so to make that connection, it does have to cross, and there is a sidewalk connection to South College Avenue. Commissioner Shafer asked about street trees in the area. Senior Planner Howell clarified that street trees would be identified, and their locations refined at time of site plan. Chairperson McIlhaney asked for clarification that the Unified Development Ordinance requirements will be met. Senior Planner Howell confirmed that the Unified Development Ordinance requirements will be met. Page 5 of 38 October 17, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Shafer moved to approve the waiver requests and preliminary plan as presented, Commissioner Finch seconded the motion, the motion passed 4-0. 5.2 Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 4, "Zoning Districts,” Section 4.2 “Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundary from SC Suburban Commercial to O Office for approximately 2.08 acres at 4205-4211 Rock Prairie Road, being Lots 1-4, Block 1 of the Waterford Heights Phase 1 Subdivision, generally located east of the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and Bird Pond Road. Case #REZ2024-000020 Senior Planner Howell presented the rezoning to the Commission recommending approval. Chairperson McIlhaney asked for clarification that the property is currently zoned as SC Suburban Commercial, and that the applicant is not intensifying the use. Senior Planner Howell confirmed both the current zoning, and that the use is not intensifying. Commissioner Finch asked for the nature of the oppositions received by staff. Senior Planner Howell stated that the oppositions were to the overall rezoning. Mr. Howell also clarified that he explained the difference between SC Suburban Commercial and O Office zoning districts. Chairperson McIlhaney opened the public hearing. Dan Fischer, Waterford Heights Subdivision, College Station, spoke in opposition to the rezoning citing concerns for buffer requirements and the existing detention pond and retention pond. Senior Planner Howell clarified that a buffer will be required, specified by the use. Mr. Howell also stated that in the current SC Suburban Commercial zoning district, a building’s height is subject to the low-density single-family height protection, limiting the structure to be set back two feet for every one foot of building height, however, there is no height limitation in the proposed O Office zoning district. Mr. Howell also clarified that the detention pond is outside the bounds of the proposed rezoning, and the applicant has proposed no changes to the retention pond. David Vesling, Waterford Heights Subdivision, College Station, spoke in opposition to the rezoning with concerns for building height and detention rerouting. Crissy Hartl, Applicant, Mitchell & Morgan Engineers, addressed the concerns for privacy stating that an O Office zoning district will allow a larger distance between the buildings and rear property line. Page 6 of 38 October 17, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 6 Chairperson McIlhaney closed the public hearing. Veronica Morgan, Applicant, Mitchell & Morgan Engineers, addressed the concerns for detention stating that the intention is not to modify the detention or retention pond, clarifying that the applicant must comply with assumptions made in the original drainage report regarding impervious cover. Chairperson McIlhaney expressed support for the rezoning. Commissioner Shafer asked for allowed building height in the proposed O Office zoning district. Ms. Hartl clarified that the idea is to maintain the four lots and have a detached office building on each lot. Each building would need to be 70 feet from the property line if built at the maximum 35 feet in height, with 126 feet between the building and property line to meet the height ratio. Commissioner Finch asked if buffering would require a wall or fence and plantings. Ms. Hartl clarified that a 10-foot-wide planted buffer and a fence would be required. Commissioner Finch asked for allowed buffers. Senior Planner Howell clarified that two non-canopy trees for every 15 feet, and one canopy tree for every 25 feet would be required as buffering. Commissioner Finch moved to recommend approval of the rezoning, Commissioner Mirza seconded the motion, the motion passed 4-0. 5.3 Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the FY2024 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Annual Review. Administrator Leal presented the annual review to the Commission. Chairperson McIlhaney asked for the definition of the “at risk” status for projects on the annual review. Administrator Leal clarified that Action Item 3.5 was a parking plan that the City Council chose not to pursue, making this action item at risk of not being achieved at all. There was no action taken. 5.4 Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the Planning and Development Services FY 2025 Plan of Work. Page 7 of 38 October 17, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 6 Director Armstrong presented the Plan of Work to the Commission. Chairperson McIlhaney expressed support for staff. There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the Plan of Work. There was no action taken. 6. Informational Agenda 6.1 Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City. New Development Link: www.cstx.gov/newdev There was no discussion. 6.2 Presentation and discussion regarding an update on items heard: • The September 2024 Small Area Plan Audit. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on September 19, 2024 and voted (6-0) to recommend acceptance of the audit report. The City Council heard this item on October 7, 2024 and voted (6-0) to approve the request. There was no discussion. 6.3 Presentation and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings: • Thursday, October 24, 2024 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Open Meeting 6:00 p.m. • Thursday, November 7, 2024 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ 6:00 p.m. • Thursday, November 14, 2024 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Open Meeting 6:00 p.m. • Thursday, November 21, 2024 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ 6:00 p.m. There was no discussion. 6.4 Discussion and review regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board and BioCorridor Board. • None There was no discussion. 7. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items. Page 8 of 38 October 17, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 6 A Planning & 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. There was no discussion. 8. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 6:49 p.m. Approved: Attest: ___________________________________ _________________________________ Melissa McIlhaney, Chairperson Kristen Hejny, Board Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services Page 9 of 38 Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2024 Scale Thirty (30) residential (single-family detached) lots and common areas on approximately 46.6 acres of land Location Generally located south of the intersection of Arrington Road and Harper’s Ferry Road, on the east side of Arrington Road in the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Applicant Michael Schaefer Project Manager Jeff Howell, Senior Planner jhowell@cstx.gov Project Overview This preliminary plan is for a development consisting of single-family residential development located along a proposed Minor Arterial thoroughfare, which is partially being widened through right-of-way dedication as part of this Preliminary Plan. Waivers are being requested for cul- de-sac lengths, block length, and street projections. The preliminary plan layout shows three private roadways (70’ R.O.W) to be provided and connected to Arrington Road through a single, gated access point. The private roadways each terminate as cul-de-sacs and common areas provided in various locations. Several waivers are requested to amend subdivision standards found in UDO Section 8.4. In all, five subdivision regulation waivers are being requested to develop the single-family residential community. Parkland Dedication Parkland dedication fees will be paid prior to recording of the final plat at a rate of $ 5,256 per dwelling unit. Traffic Impact Analysis A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was not required. Compliant with Comprehensive Plan (including Master Plans) and Unified Development Ordinance The preliminary plan is compliant with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Character Map, however this property is located outside of the City limits in the extra- territorial jurisdiction where the City has no land use authority. Compliant with Subdivision Regulations Yes, with the exception of five waiver requests, which are related to a single point of private access and not providing street connections to adjacent properties. The waivers are related to street requirements regarding cul-de-sacs (Section 8.4.C.7.), block length (Section 8.4.E.1.), and street projections (Section 8.4.C.3.b.). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the waivers and the Preliminary Plan. Preliminary Plan for Arrowhead Village PP2024-000017 Page 10 of 38 Planning & Zoning Commission November 7, 2024 Supporting Materials 1. Waiver Request 2. Applicants Supporting Information 3. Aerial and Small Area Map 4. Preliminary Plan 5. CSISD Letter Page 11 of 38 SUBDIVISION WAIVER REQUESTS The proposed Preliminary Plan is in compliance with the applicable Subdivision Regulations contained in the UDO except for the following waiver requests: UDO Section 8.4.C.7. ‘Cul-de-sac’ -Per the requirements of this section, cul-de-sacs are to be no greater than 750’ in length. As indicated in the attached waiver requests, the first three waiver requests are for each of the proposed streets which end in cul-de- sacs within the subdivision, accessed from a single point along Arrington Road. These are shown to be measured as: Arrowhead Village Trail (1,782’) which exceeds the amount by 1,032’, Little Brave Trail (1,328’) which exceeds the amount by 578’, and Painted Horse Trail (2,253’) which exceeds the amount by 1,053’. The applicant has indicated that the neighboring property conditions make it difficult to provide through streets. The properties to the north are large estate lots with existing homes, while the CSISD to the south and east has indicated they do not want any connectivity to the development. Page 12 of 38 UDO Section 8.4.E.1. ‘Blocks’ -Per the requirements of this section, block length shall not exceed 1,500’. As indicated in the attached waiver requests, the second waiver request is for block length, which in this case extends from Harper’s Ferry Road to Mesa Verde Drive (7,100’). The applicant states that due to the configuration of the tract and adjacent properties, the block length is not achievable. While the adjacent properties are large and some are already developed, this subdivision is proposing to include private streets and no other public streets are provided along Arrington Road in this location. Page 13 of 38 UDO Section 8.4.C.3.b. ‘Street Projections’ -Per the requirements this section, where abutting properties are landlocked, a street connection shall be provided through the platting property. As indicated in the attached waiver request, the third waiver request is to not provide a street connection to the adjacent properties. The properties to the north are large estate lots with existing homes, while the CSISD to the south and east has indicated they do not want any vehicular connectivity to the development. Private streets are provided within the subdivision, however they are terminated by cul-de-sacs and there is no connection proposed to any of the adjacent properties. The applicant is requesting these five (5) waivers as their intention is to provide a gated subdivision for a single-family residential community. The applicant states that while the streets are privately maintained, they are to be constructed to the standard roadway design. The applicant states that the proposed configuration and undesired connectivity by neighboring properties has limited to applicant to one access point. Page 14 of 38 In accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, when considering a waiver the Planning and Zoning Commission should make the following findings to approve the waiver: 1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; The applicant is proposing to provide private streets and a gated entrance from Arrington Road. The applicant has stated that drainage has been incorporated into drainage easements in the common areas, which can be found on the perimeter of the development. They have also stated access is unattainable, connection to the north is unattainable due to the existing development and connection to the adjacent CSISD property is undesired. The applicant also indicates the tract and neighboring conditions necessitate a single-entry subdivision. The property is part of a larger property that is bound on two sides by CSISD property who has provided a letter stating that connection is not desired. A trail network is proposed within the common areas that is denoted by the two trailheads to be constructed as well as a fire lane connection to the CSISD property for future emergency access between properties. With the inclusion of the trail system, this will provide additional opportunity for non-vehicular circulation as sidewalks along the roadways are not permitted in the ETJ. All lots are meeting the minimum dimension requirement for lots within the ETJ. 2) That the waivers are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant; If the waivers are not granted, the subject property can still be subdivided. The property is over 40 acres in size and the minimum lot size for a single-family dwelling in the ETJ is one acre. While the subdivision is proposed to include 30 lots, it may be reconfigured to still meet the requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance. The applicant also states they wish to meet the intent of the land use regulations in a slightly different way and that by denial of this application would deny their “enjoyment of a substantial property right”. 3) The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering this chapter; and The granting of these waivers would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare of other properties in the area as this development will comply with all other standards and requirements found in the subdivision standards of the Unified Development Ordinance as they apply to properties in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. The superintendent for the College Station ISD has indicated they do not want any vehicular connectivity to the development and has provided a letter citing various reasons. A trail network is proposed within the common areas as well as a fire lane connection to the CSISD property for emergency access. Page 15 of 38 The applicant has stated that the developer intends to provide suitable access for emergency vehicles, a desirable quality of life to inhabitants, and consist of a land use that is complimentary to the surrounding property. 4) That the granting of the waivers will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. These waivers will not have a negative effect on the orderly subdivision of land in the area. The roads proposed as part of this subdivision are to be private and gated. The applicant has stated that the larger area has been subdivided into a land use that is complimentary to the proposal and the area is currently developed consistent with the land use proposed. With the exception of the waivers, they will be meeting the requirements of the rural residential street section. If the Commission approves any or all of the waivers, the Commission shall incorporate the findings of each waiver into the official minutes of the meetings at which such waiver is granted. If any of the waivers are denied, then the preliminary plan is also denied. For this preliminary plan to be approved as proposed, all waivers need to be accepted. Waivers may be granted only when in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this UDO so that public health, safety, and welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. Staff is recommending approval of the waiver requests. Page 16 of 38 Page 1 of 3 ARROWHEAD VILLAGE – PRELIMINARY PLAN WAIVER REQUEST 10/25/2024 Basis of Request At the platting level, with only the few exceptions further detailed below, Arrowhead Village shall meet (or exceed) the required standards of design for a subdivision in the City of College Station’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). All lots within the subdivision shall be one acre or larger. Arrowhead Village is intended to be developed with privately maintained streets. None the less, all streets shall be constructed to the standard roadway design requirements for right‐of‐way width, materials used, and construction techniques. The entry to the subdivision shall be gated. The subject tract’s configuration and neighboring property conditions have made it difficult for the Applicant to achieve their vision for the project while meeting all the Unified Development Ordinance’s (UDO’s) standard requirements for subdivisions in the ETJ. • Tract Configuration ‐ The Applicant has submitted a subdivision with one public right‐of‐way access point and 30 lots. 29 of these lots are for the new subdivision while one is a replat of the adjacent Bewley Addition property. The Arrowhead Village property is generally rectangular in configuration, with the narrowest dimension, under 800 feet, along the Arrington Road right‐of‐way. Based on standard roadway design requirements and reasonable subdivision design, having more than one public right‐of‐way access point would be unrealistic. Further, in accordance with the International Fire Code, subdivisions of greater than 30 lots are required to have a second public right‐of‐way access of a separation distance greater than one‐half the diagonal to the farthest property corners. In the case of the Arrowhead Village tract, this distance is around 1,200 feet. Considering the limited 800 feet of right‐of‐way frontage, the Applicant is unable to meet the standards of the Fire Code. • Neighboring Property Conditions – The northern adjacent properties are all large estate lots (unplatted). All but one of the properties have well‐established homes, barns/shops, and other improvements common of larger, acreage estates. Due to the well‐established nature of the homes, it is the desire of all parties to coexist independently without access to common infrastructure. The southern and eastern adjacent property is owned by College Station Independent School District. The school district has stated that they do not want vehicular connectivity for safety reasons (See Attached Correspondence dated 9/25/24). The western adjacent property is Arrington Road right‐of‐way. To summarize, the Arrowhead Village tract configuration and the undesirable nature of common connectivity to infrastructure by neighboring properties, the Applicant is limited to one public right‐of‐way access point. With this basis of request in mind, the Applicant would like to propose the following waivers to the UDO standard requirements: Waiver Request #1 – Cul‐de‐Sac Length (UDO Article 8.4.C.7) According to UDO Article 8.4.C.7, cul‐de‐sac length shall not exceed 750 feet in length as measured from the nearest intersecting through street right‐of‐way. The Applicant’s plan provides for three internal culs‐de‐sac off the single access entry. From the nearest intersection of Arrowhead Village Trail and Arrington Road, the cul-de-sac lengths would be: Little Brave Trail (1,328 feet), Arrowhead Village Trail (1,782 feet), Painted Horse Trail (2,253 feet). Refer to the Preliminary Plan for locational information. Page 17 of 38 Page 2 of 3 • Response to UDO, 8.5.A.1 – As noted in the basis of request, the configuration of the tract and neighboring property conditions, creating a single entry subdivision, makes it difficult to provide multiple through streets to achieve the short 750 feet distance separations. In the Applicant’s opinion, this is the “special circumstances or conditions affecting the land” that “deprive the Applicant of the reasonable use of the land”. • Response to UDO, 8.5.A.2 – The basis of any land use regulations is to provide a method to ensure that the public good is met in every new development within the community. If a developer is willing to create a product that provides adequate utilities, streets, and drainage, is built based on construction standards equal to or better than those required by Ordinance, and provides a suitable quality of life for its inhabitants, as is the case with the proposed subdivision, then the intent of land use regulations has been met. To deprive a developer, who wishes to meet the intent of land use regulation but in a way slightly different than standard procedure, of the ability to turn their vision into reality is a denial of the developer’s “enjoyment of a sub stantial property right”. • Response to UDO, 8.5.A.3 – With the proposed development, the Developer intends to provide adequate utilities, streets, and drainage, suitable access for emergency vehicles, provide a quality of life desirable to the inhabitants of the subdivision, and consist of a land use type complimentary to the surrounding property. Based on this, the proposed subdivision “will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area”. • Response to UDO, 8.5.A.4 – The proposed development “will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area” primarily due to its location within a larger area that has been previously subdivided into a land use type complimentary to the proposed development. Additional development within the area is currently being developed in an “orderly” fashion maintaining consistency with the residential land use type initially planned for the area. Waiver Request #2 – Block Length (UDO Article 8.4.E) According to UDO Article 8.4.E, block length shall not exceed 1,500 feet. The Applicant is meeting block length requirements along the northern side of Arrowhead Village Trail and all other streets within the proposed development. The waiver is requested for the southern side of Arrowhead Village Trail. Refer to the Preliminary Plan for locational information. • Response to UDO, 8.5.A.1 – As noted in the basis of request, the configuration of the tract and neighboring property conditions, creating a single entry subdivision, makes it difficult to provide multiple through streets to achieve greater, area‐wide block length connectivity as provided for in the UDO. More specifically, connectivity to the southern property is undesirable due to the future use as a school site and their desire for a controlled access environment. In the Applicant’s opinion, this is the “special circumstances or conditions affecting the land” that “deprive the Applicant of the reasonable use of the land”. • Response to UDO, 8.5.A.2 – The basis of any land use regulations is to provide a method to ensure that the public good is met in every new development within the community. If a developer is willing to create a product that provides adequate utilities, streets, and drainage, is built based on construction standards equal to or better than those required by Ordinance, and provides a suitable quality of life for its inhabitants, as is the case with the proposed subdivision, then the intent of land use regulations has been met. To deprive a developer, who wishes to meet the intent of land use regulation but in a way slightly different than standard procedure, of the ability to turn their vision into reality is a denial of the developer’s “enjoyment of a sub stantial property right”. • Response to UDO, 8.5.A.3 – With the proposed development, the Developer intends to provide adequate utilities, streets, and drainage, suitable access for emergency vehicles, provide a quality of life desirable to the inhabitants of the subdivision, and consist of a land use type complimentary to the surrounding property. Based on this, the proposed subdivision “will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area”. Page 18 of 38 Page 3 of 3 • Response to UDO, 8.5.A.4 – The proposed development “will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area” primarily due to its location within a larger area that has been previously subdivided into a land use type complimentary to the proposed development. Additional development within the area is currently being developed in an “orderly” fashion maintaining consistency with the residential land use type initially planned for the area. Waiver Request #3 – Street Projections (UDO Article 8.4.C.3) According to UDO Article 8.4.C.3, street projections shall be provided to adjacent unplatted property. The Applicant has submitted a development with a single public right‐of‐way access point. Refer to the Preliminary Plan for information. • Response to UDO, 8.5.A.1 – As noted in the basis of request, the configuration of the tract and neighboring property conditions creates a situation where access to common infrastructure is unattainable. More specifically, connectivity to the southern property is undesirable due to the future use as a school site and their desire for a controlled access environment. And, access to the northern properties is unattainable due to the existing well‐established estate lot development. In the Applicant’s opinion, this is the “special circumstances or conditions affecting the land” that “deprive the Applicant of the reasonable use of the land”. • Response to UDO, 8.5.A.2 – The basis of any land use regulations is to provide a method to ensure that the public good is met in every new development within the community. If a developer is willing to create a product that provides adequate utilities, streets, and drainage, is built based on construction standards equal to or better than those required by Ordinance, and provides a suitable quality of life for its inhabitants, as is the case with the proposed subdivision, then the intent of land use regulations has been met. To deprive a developer, who wishes to meet the intent of land use regulation but in a way slightly different than standard procedure, of the ability to turn their vision into reality is a denial of the developer’s “enjoyment of a sub stantial property right”. • Response to UDO, 8.5.A.3 – With the proposed development, the Developer intends to provide adequate utilities, streets, and drainage, suitable access for emergency vehicles, provide a quality of life desirable to the inhabitants of the subdivision, and consist of a land use type complimentary to the surrounding property. Based on this, the proposed subdivision “will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area”. • Response to UDO, 8.5.A.4 – The proposed development “will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of land in the area” primarily due to its location within a larger area that has been previously subdivided into a land use type complimentary to the proposed development. Additional development within the area is currently being developed in an “orderly” fashion maintaining consistency with the residential land use type initially planned for the area. Page 19 of 38 Page 20 of 38 Page 21 of 38 Page 22 of 38 COLLEGE STATION INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT September 25,2024 Dear Michael, I am writing on behalf of College Station ISOto address the topic of road connectivity between our school property and the new Arrowhead development on the adjacent tract.As you know,the school district owns the land that surrounds your entire property on the south and east side. We would not want any connectivity to your development for the following reasons: •We do not have any immediate plans for development or construction on this property. •In developing new campuses,we try and limit the ingress and egress of vehicular traffic.This is primarily done for safety reasons. •There is ample amount of road frontage between Arrington Road and Indian Lakes Drive. If I can provide any further information,please let me know. ;;?iI-- Dr.Tim Harkrider Tim Harkrider,Ed.D. SuperintendentofSchoo~ 979-764-5455 1812 Welsh Ave. College Station,TX 77840 www.csisd.org Page 23 of 38 November 7, 2024 Item No. 5.2. Northpoint Crossing Concept Plan Amendment Sponsor: Robin Macias, Land Development Review Administrator Reviewed By CBC: N/A Agenda Caption: Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending Appendix A, Unified Development Ordinance, Article 4, "Zoning Districts," Section 4.2 "Official Zoning Map," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by changing the zoning district boundary from PDD Planned Development District to PDD Planned Development District to amend the concept plan for approximately 11 acres generally located at 424 Northpoint Crossing Drive. Case# REZ2024-000023 (Note: Final action of this item will be considered at the November 25, 2024 City Council Meeting - subject to change). Relationship to Strategic Goals: • Diverse Growing Economy Recommendation(s): Staff recommends denial of the rezoning request for the proposed changes to the Concept Plan. The proposed changes are not in line with the Comprehensive Plan or Northeast Gateway Redevelopment Plan. Summary: The applicant is requesting to amend the concept plan to reduce the amount of required commercial space on the ground floor to 24% or 12,225 square feet for the subject property generally located at the intersection of Texas Avenue and University Drive. The subject property is currently developed as a mixed-use development with retail space on the ground floor and multi-family apartments above in three buildings and multi-family residential in the remaining buildings. The subject property is located within The Crossing area of the Northeast Gateway Redevelopment Plan. The goals for this area are to build a vibrant and distinct identity for the crossing that embraces an attractive urban form with versatile public spaces and to ensure the availability of residential and commercial opportunities throughout the district. The property was first rezoned in 2012 to PDD Planned Development District and required that the entire ground floor be commercial space. In 2017, a concept plan amendment was approved to reduce the amount of required commercial space to 50% of the ground floor. REVIEW OF CONCEPT PLAN The Concept Plan provides an illustration of the general layout of the proposed buildings and the general location of commercial spaces on the ground floor. The proposed amendment to the adopted Concept Plan allows for the reduction in the number of mixed use buildings from three to one and the reduction of commercial space from 50% to 24% of the ground floor area of the one remaining mixed use building. The Unified Development Ordinance provides the following review criteria as the basis for reviewing PDD concept plans: 1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in harmony with the Page 24 of 38 character of the surrounding area; 2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of this Section; 3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and will not adversely affect adjacent development; 4. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to a public street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned by a homeowners association; 5. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements, including, but not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities; 6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 7. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonably anticipated in the area considering existing zoning and land uses in the area. This area is designated as Urban Center on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Areas designated as urban center are appropriate for the most intense development and a mix of uses arranged in a compact and walkable pattern. It should encourage vertical mixed-use structures with ground-floor retail. The Northeast Gateway Redevelopment Plan designates this area as a pinnacle intersection within The Crossing and provides a strong opportunity for urban development types and public spaces. The Crossing anticipates a high level of redevelopment, vertical mixed-use structures, significant increases in housing options and a denser urban form. The proposal to further decrease the amount of commercial on the ground floor does not align with the comprehensive plan or the Northeast Gateway Redevelopment Plan. Purpose, Intent and Community Benefit: The adopted Planned Development District for this property outlines the purpose, intent, and community benefit of the proposed development. The purpose of the PDD zoning district is to provide a vertical mixed use and multi-family development at the intersection of Texas Avenue and University Drive. The adopted Concept Plan shows the current building layout and three designated mixed use areas with the first floor being developed as either multi-family or general commercial with at least 50% as general commercial. The applicant is now proposing to reduce the general commercial portion to 24% or 12,225 sq ft. and to reduce the mixed use buildings to only one that front Texas Avenue. Budget & Financial Summary: Attachments: 1. Background Information 2. Aerial and Small Area Map 3. Existing Future Land Use Map 4. Rezoning map 5. Rezoning exhibit 6. Applicant's Supporting Information 7. Existing Concept Plan 8. Revised Concept plan Page 25 of 38 Page 26 of 38 BACKGROUND INFORMATION NOTIFICATIONS Advertised Commission Hearing Date: November 7, 2024 Advertised Council Hearing Date: November 25, 2024 The following neighborhood organizations that are registered with the City of College Station’s Neighborhood Services have received a courtesy letter of notification of this public hearing: None Property owner notices mailed: 28 Contacts in support: None at the time of this report Contacts in opposition: None at the time of this report Inquiry contacts: None at the time of this report ADJACENT LAND USES Direction Comprehensive Plan Zoning Land Use North Texas A&M University C-U College and University & GC General Commercial Commercial Developments along Texas Ave and Hensel St (local street) South Texas A&M University C-U College and University University Drive (6-lane Major Arterial) East Urban Center & Redevelopment Area GC General Commercial Texas Avenue (4-lane Major Arterial) West Texas A&M University C-U College and University Medical Clinic & Multi- family DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Annexation: March 1939 Zoning:C-1 General Commercial (1946) PDD Planned Development District (2012, 2014 and 2017) Final Plat: Northpoint Crossing Subdivision Lots 1 & 2 Site development:Mixed-Use and Multi-family Page 27 of 38 Page 28 of 38 Page 29 of 38 Page 30 of 38 Page 31 of 38 CITY OFTEXAS A&MBRYANUNIVERSITYTEXAS A&MUNIVERSITYVICINITY MAPSITEOWNER:SZ Northpoint Apartments, LP 251 Little Falls Drive Wilmington, DE 19808AUGUST 20247.5'Page 32 of 38 Page 1 of 4 REZONING PDD APPLICATION SUPPORTING INFORMATION Name of Project: NORTHPOINT CROSSING (REZ2024-000023) Address: Legal Description: Total Acreage: 11.19 Applicant: CRISSY HARTL Property Owner: List the changed or changing conditions in the area or in the City which make this zone change necessary. Over the years, College Station has faced many challenges in creating spaces and development requirements for successful mixed-use developments. Mixed-use has proven to be difficult to sustain and Northpoint Crossing is no exception. Since the development opened in 2014, several businesses have opened and closed, some lasting only months. Despite efforts to offer relief for rent and other incentives, there are many other factors, including customer parking habits and overall shopping culture that affect the success of retailers at this location that can not be resolved. Most of the ground floor retail space is unoccupied, and several of the spaces have never been leased. With a growing need for more housing close to campus, converting some of these spaces from retail to residential will yield a success for both the City of College Station and Northpoint Crossing. We request to amend the PDD to convert approximately 76% of the ground floor retail space into residential units. The remaining 24% will remain ground floor retail. Indicate whether or not this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. If it is not, explain why the Plan is incorrect. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Northpoint Crossing property as an Urban Center area on the Future Land Use Plan. Urban Center areas are “appropriate for the most intense development and mix of uses arranged in a compact and walkable pattern.” The requested amendment to the Northpoint Crossing PDD still supports this desired type of development and is therefore in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. How will this zone change be compatible with the present zoning and conforming uses of nearby property and with the character of the neighborhood? As properties along University Drive continue to redevelop, the Northpoint Crossing development and the amendment requested continue to conform to the uses of the nearby property and the character of the neighborhood. Page 33 of 38 Page 2 of 4 Explain the suitability of the property for uses permitted by the rezoning district requested. The rezoning request to convert a portion of the retail space at Northpoint Crossing into more residences meets the dire need for more housing close to the Texas A&M campus and improves the vitality of the development as a whole by finding a use for the empty spaces. The additional residential uses requested in this amendment are much more suitable for Northpoint Crossing. Explain the suitability of the property for uses permitted by the current zoning district. Over the past 10 years, many challenges have faced Northpoint Crossing in attracting businesses to occupy the ground floor retail spaces. The retail market has not favored other mixed-use developments in College Station and this location is no exception. Ultimately, this amount of retail space in Northpoint Crossing is not suitable. Explain the marketability of the property for uses permitted by the current zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies the area surrounding the intersection of Texas Avenue and University Drive as Planning Area 5: Northeast Gateway Redevelopment Plan, which states vertical mixed-use is encouraged, but also indicates one of the challenges for such developments is commercial real estate market demand. Since the opening of Northpoint Crossing in 2014, the retail portions of the development have always been challenged with attracting and maintaining businesses. Despite the traffic volumes at this prominent intersection, commercial uses are not very marketable at this location. List any other reasons to support this zone change. N/A Maximum Building Height. N/A Proposed Drainage. The purpose and intent are the same as the original development. No new development is being proposed with this request. Page 34 of 38 Page 3 of 4 Variations Sought. We are not seeking any new ordinance modifications. All existing modifications approved in Ordinances 2014- 3554 and 2017-3948 will still apply. Community Benefits. All existing benefits approved in Ordinances 2014-3554 and 2017-3948 still apply. Sustained Stability. As approved and constructed, the concept plan has established a stable environment of mixed-uses and walkability, which also contributed to the redevelopment along University Drive. Even with the requested reduction in retail space, Northpoint Crossing will continue to constitute an environment of sustained stability in harmony with the character of the surrounding area. Conformity. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Northpoint Crossing property as an Urban Center area on the Future Land Use Plan. Urban Center areas are “appropriate for the most intense development and mix of uses arranged in a compact and walkable pattern.” The requested amendment to the Northpoint Crossing PDD still supports this desired type of development and conforms with the policies, goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility with use. The requested amendment to the PDD Planned Development District will not affect the compatibility with existing or permitted uses on the abutting sites because the development as a whole is still considered “mixed-use”. The concept plan will remain the same and will still offer a mix of uses, which are compatible with the surrounding uses on nearby properties. Access to Streets. All dwelling units are contained within buildings and that have direct access to public access easements which feed to University Drive or Texas Avenue. The parking garage that is available to the residents as well as the general public also has access to the same public access easement. Page 35 of 38 Page 4 of 4 Public Improvements. Public improvements that are necessary to provide service to this project have been designed and constructed. The project itself has several “gathering spaces” and amenity areas to support the pedestrians, customers and tenants of the project. Public Health. The request to convert a portion of the existing ground floor retail into residential units will contribute positively to the health, safety and welfare to the surrounding properties and improvements. There has been much redevelopment in this area of College Station that has created a walkable environment beyond Northpoint Crossing. Adding more residential units within walking distance to Texas A&M will increase pedestrian activity and increase the health and vitality of the surrounding area. Safety. A TIA was written for this PDD and improvements per that report have been implemented to provide safe and convenient vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation. This modification to the existing PDD does not change the conclusions of that TIA because the traffic generation from commercial uses is higher than that from residential units; therefore, converting some of the commercial to residential uses would reduce traffic demands. Page 36 of 38 Page 8 of 14ORDINANCENO.2017-3948 EXHIBIT "C"—Concept Plan 1111 I i 14s 5 1 dll'NvoaoV. LSJWONv113 OI O w,, ao. .<«p a.a NOIl'1VOD L11O T1O3 00MCOgaa3ll'S3111Nf1WW0 31tl1'J3T10 3NOlSdO' i• >< e• F'' ll"r • 1` Xl'NOIIVIS JDllO d'l 81321IH zni tag a_ :£1(l 1, f @ 1N WdO12A O2 J VZtlld 3HI SH3N[Hva8sA3aHawnH Aae x 0 IslA I ... 133b1S I SN H 5 " C ' :.-j E8 E I Ir__a_lI___z :;: sirr,•;,"r;,},rr,"•:::::s;:,$;::5::li II 1 , D 06 %IEEE ¢$ D4 C: PiYae L-i3 Elillibliriiiiii I o s u a, o 2,iiii Li 113 7:•-..--:::.--7.;.---..7,:-::::::, 1--- g2kr; 3 Li_ 1 moipII11iliiiiNii,4s1 ;•4,'„4%).)-,QO gi4 l '..s; l , ,+ wfi_ a U I ' H Z tn Iii4i @ ll F Z 9 .. .. r r o \\\ \\ 11 n1 O F F U gREa w r'ws 2 6Q- L aywv'' y U7IW 60vOi Ow5e QsA Wag¢'ti U o 15o'S rmmumc 1U °irawao r.. Page 37 of 38 7(;$6$9(18(81,9(56,7<'5,9(127$3$570$,1(175<(175<(;,7(175<(;,738%/,&:$<$0(1,7<&2857<$5'&2857<$5'3/$=$23(163$&(3+$6(/,1(327(17,$/6(&7,21$''('72%8,/',1*,)3$5&(/,6$&48,5(' :,'(3('(675,$15287()520%8,/',1*$1'*$5$*((175<(;,7127$3$57$0(1,7<52:'(',&$7,21$5($ :,'(3('(675,$15287()520%8,/',1*$1'*$5$*((175<(;,7&&),5(/$1(38//28738%/,&:$<3$5.,1*38%/,&:$<38%/,&:$< 38%/,&:$<327(17,$/%866723(;,67,1*7$08%866723327(17,$/%866723'8$/5,*+77851/$1(6&2857<$5'38%/,&:$<+(16(/675((7+,*+'(16,7<5(6,'(17,$/21*5$'(6758&785('3$5.,1*+,*+'(16,7<5(6,'(17,$/29(5685)$&(3$5.,1*NSHEET CONTENTS:Revisions:Issue for Permit Application:Architect of Record:Drawn by:Designed by:Date Plotted: #SHEET NO.Issue for Pricing / Bidding:DATE COMMENTSThe architectural works depicted herein are thesole property of Humphreys & Partners Architects,L.P. and may not be constructed or used withoutits express written permission. No permission tomodify or reproduce any of the architectural works,including without limitation the construction of anybuilding, is expressed or should be implied fromdelivery of preliminary drawings or unsealedconstruction drawings. Permission to constructthe building depicted in sealed constructiondrawings is expressly conditioned on the full andtimely payment of all fees otherwise dueHumphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. and, in theabsence of any written agreement to the contrary,is limited to a one-time use on the site indicated onthese plans.©E\+XPSKUH\V 3DUWQHUV$UFKLWHFWV/3$OO5LJKWV5HVHUYHG2015ARCHITECTS, L.P.5339 ALPHA ROAD SUITE 300 DALLAS, TEXAS 75240(972) 701 - 9636 (972) 701 - 9639 FAXwww.humphreys.comNEW ORLEANS ORLANDO PHOENIXDALLAS CHARLOTTE IRVINE LAS VEGASHUMPHREYS&PARTNERS7+(3/$=$5('(9(/230(17&2//(*(67$7,217;&$36721(&2//(*,$7(&20081,7,(6//&:22'5,'*(&2//(*(67$7,21,//&0,7&+(//$1'025*$1//3$8*867LEGENDVICINITY MAP (n.t.s.)LEGAL DESCRIPTIONCITY OFTEXAS A&MBRYANUNIVERSITYTEXAS A&MUNIVERSITYTEXAS A&MUNIVERSITYSITESITECP1aPDDCONCEPT PLANGENERAL NOTESLot 1 and Lot 2, Northpoint Crossing, Lot 2-4, Block 1, North Park, a 0.345 acre tract J.E. Scott LeagueA-50 and 0.055 acres of abandoned right-of-way (10778/243).CONTACT: CRISSY HARTLMITCHELL AND MORGANVOICE: (979) 260-6963FAX: (979) 260-3564College Station, TX 778403204 Earl Rudder Fwy. SAPPLICANTOWNEREMAIL: crissy@mitchellandmorgan.comCONTACT: BEAU CROCKETTSZ NORTHPOINT Wilmington, DE 19808251 Little Falls DriveEMAIL: bcrockett@thesciongroup.comAPARTMENTS, LPCONVERTED 1ST FLOOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - 37,886 SF (76%)MANAGERTHE SCION GROUP401 N. Michigan AvenueSuite 400Chicago, IL 60611CONTACT: ROB BRONSTEINMIXED USE - 1ST FLOOR RETAIL TO REMAIN - 12,225 SF (24%)Page 38 of 38