HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/2014 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning Commission L" Ar""
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Home of Texas AerM University'
Planning & Zoning
Commission
March 6, 2014
City Hall Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
Workshop Meeting 6:00 PM
Regular Meeting 7:00 PM
(*Orq"
AGENDA
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Home of Texas A&M University' PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
WORKSHOP MEETING
MARCH 6, 2014,AT 6:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
1. Call the meeting to order.
2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items.
3. Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City. [_New Development
List]
4. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the development of the 2014
Planning& Zoning Commission Plan of Work. (J. Schubert)
5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the Planning& Zoning
Commission's Rules of Procedure. (L. Simms)
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming
Meetings.
• Thursday, March 13, 2014 — City Council Meeting — Council Chambers — Workshop
6:00 p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m. (Liaison—Miles)
• Thursday, March 20, 2014 — P&Z Meeting — Council Chambers — Workshop 6:00
p.m. and Regular 7:00 p.m.
7. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review
Board, Joint Parks / Planning & Zoning Subcommittee, BioCorridor Board, BioCorridor
Plan Process, 5-Year Comprehensive Plan Review Subcommittee, and Zoning District
Subcommittee.
8. 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.
9. Adjourn.
Consultation with Attorney{Gov't Code Section 551.0711 ,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.
Notice is hereby given that a Workshop Meeting of the College Station Planning&Zoning Commission,College Station,
Texas will be held on March 6, 2014 at 6:00 PM at City Hall Council Chamber, 1101 Texas Avenue, College Station,
Texas.The following subjects will be discussed,to wit: See Agenda.
Posted this the day of February,2014,at
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS
By
Sherry Mashburn,City Secretary
By
Kelly Templin,City Manager
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the above Notice of the Workshop Meeting of the Planning & Zoning
Commission of the City of College Station,Texas,is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and
correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at City Hall,1101 Texas Avenue,in College Station,Texas,and the City's
website,www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and
Agenda were posted on February , 2014, at and remained so posted continuously for at least 72 hours
preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and
time: by
Dated this day of 12014.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS
By
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of ,2014.
Notary Public-Brazos County,Texas
My commission expires:
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service
must be made 48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3541 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989.
Agendas may be viewed on www.cstx.gov.Planning and Zoning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access
Channel 19.
DRAFT 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Plan of Work
Comprehensive Plan Implementation
Implementation of Adopted Plans
Summary: Project Dates:
Implementation of adopted master plans and
neighborhood, district, and corridor plans, namely:
Central College Station, Eastgate, Southside Area,
Wellborn Community, and South Knoll Area
neighborhood plans, and Bicycle, Pedestrian &
Greenways, Parks and Recreation, Water, Waste
Water, Medical District, and Economic Development
master plans.
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff JAnticipated Completion: On-going
Five-Year Comprehensive Plan Report
Summary: Project Dates:
As called for in the Comprehensive Plan, complete a
five-year evaluation and appraisal report to assess
existing Plan and its success in achieving the
community's goals.
Staff Assigned: J. Prochazka JAnticipated Completion: May 2014
Five-Year Comprehensive Plan Report Implementation
Summary: Project Dates:
Begin implementation of items and tasks identified in
the Five-Year Comprehensive Plan Report.
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Multi-Family & Mixed Use Zoning Districts
Summary: Project Dates:
Create and adopt new zoning districts for Urban and
Urban Mixed Use designations to implement these
future land use and character designations identified in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Assigned: J. Prochazka, T. Rogers JAnticipated Completion:
Walton Drive Commercial Overlay
Summary: Project Dates:
Create and adopt a zoning overlay to address parking
and other non-conformities for the commercial area at
Walton Drive and Texas Avenue as identified in the
Eastgate Neighborhood Plan.
Staff Assigned: J. Schubert JAnticipated Completion:
Wellborn Zoning Districts
Summary: Project Dates:
Create and adopt new or modified zoning districts as
identifed in the Wellborn Community Plan.
Page 1 of 3
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff JAnticipated Completion:
Research and Education
College Station Population
Summary: Project Dates:
Overview of College Station's current population
estimate and report on implications of exceeding the
100,000 mark.
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Easterwood Airport Master Plan
Summary: Project Dates:
Report on Easterwood Airport Master Plan and
consideration of potential implications of any future
plans for expansion.
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Planning & Development Services Organizational Review Implementation
Summary: Project Dates:
Continue implementation of the review by completing
identified policy discussions, ordinance revisions, and
process and service improvements.
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff JAnticipated Completion:
Recently-Adopted Zoning Districts
Summary: Project Dates:
Overview of the recently adopted zoning disticts.
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Review of Adopted Plans
Summary: Project Dates:
This item includes after action review of Northgate,
BioCorridor, and Medical Districts, update on
Water/Wastewater Master Plan, and update on
implementation of adopted neighborhood and small
area plans.
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Sign Regulations
Summary: Project Dates:
Evaluate sign regulations related to electronic message
boards.
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Transportation Planning
Summary: Project Dates:
Update regarding Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) transportation planning initiatives.
Staff Assigned: P&DS Staff Anticipated Completion:
Page 2 of 3
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning d-Development Services
City of College Station N Planning and Zoning Commission
Rules of Procedure
Adopted SeptembeF 12, 2006
Article 1. Authority
1.1 Section 2.2.C.4 of the City of College Station Unified Development Ordinance
authorizes the Planning and Zoning Commission to adopt its own rules of procedure.
Article 2. Purpose, Powers and Duties
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of the Commission is to exercise the powers authorized by the College
Station City Council under the City of College Station Code of Ordinances and
applicable State statutes regarding planning, zoning and related matters.
2.2 Powers and Duties
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the powers and duties authorized in
Article 2 of the Unified Development Ordinance and Chapter 9 of the City of College
Station Code of Ordinances, and any other applicable ordinances or laws, and to
make recommendations in implementing the Comprehensive Plan, and establish
subcommittees of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
A. Plan of Work
The Planning and Zoning Commission may adopt a Plan of Work. The Plan of
Work should consider future tasks for a prescribed period and be updated and
revised annually in coordination with the City Council Strategic Planning
process.
Upon presentation of a draft Plan of Work by the Commission in a joint
meeting with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
Commission may adopt the Plan by majority vote of the members present.
B. Survey and Report
The Commission may conduct an annual survey of residents of the City of
College Station to assess needs and desires relevant to the purpose of the
Commission and report such findings to the City Council.
P&Z Rules of Procedure SeptembeF 12, 2006 Page 1 of 5
Article 3. Organization and Officers
3.1 Appointment
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consist of those members appointed by
the City Council in accordance with the UDO_,
Appointments are made at times as determined by the
City Council. Upon taking the Official Oath of Office given by the City Secretary or
designee, the Commissioners shall attend meetings in an official capacity.
A. A Chairperson shall be appointed annually by the City Council.
B. A Vice-Chair shall be selected by the Commission from among its members as
necessary.
3.2 Membership and Terms
A. Terms
Terms of members of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be as
provided in the Unified Development Ordinance. Commissioners with expiring
terms seeking reappointment must formally reapply in writing for
consideration. Staff shall inform Commissioners of term expiration by
January 31St of the year in which their term expires.
B. Term Limits
Terms of office shall be as provided in the Unified Development Ordinance.
C. Vacancies
Vacancies shall be filled as provided in the Unified Development Ordinance.
Article 4. Meetings and Procedures
4.1 Meetings
Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall meet twice monthly on the
first and third Thursdays. Unless otherwise posted, Workshop meetings will normally
be held in the City Hall Council Chambers
at 6:00 p.m. and Regular meetings will normally be held in the City Hall Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m. All meetings of the Commission where a quorum is present
shall be open to the public. Special meetings or workshops of the Planning and
Zoning Commission may be called by the Chair or upon request of a majority of the
Commission to the chair.
4.2 Quorum
A quorum is a majority of the number of members of the Commission. Four (4)
members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of any business. Any
recommendation advanced to the City Council without a majority of positive votes
from those members present shall be deemed a negative report. No business shall
be conducted or action taken without a quorum of the Commission present.
P&Z Rules of Procedure SeptembeF 12, 2006 Page 2 of 5
4.3 Absences
In accordance with Ordinance No. 2406, Commissioners shall submit an absence
request to the staff liaison.
4.4 Conflict-of-Interest
The conflict-of-interest laws require that a member file an affidavit and abstain from
participating in, and voting on, items in which a member has a substantial interest.
Members of the Commission should refer to SECTIONS 114, 115, AND 116 OF THE
COLLEGE STATION CITY CHARTER, CHAPTERS 171 ET SEQ. AND 212.017 OF THE
TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE to determine whether the member may have a
conflict of interest. Additionally, a member is encouraged to contact the
Administrator, being the Planning and Development Services Director or designee,
and/or the City Attorney prior to the meeting at which the item will be considered by
the Commission.
4.5 Order of Business
The order of business shall generally be conducted as follows:
A. Workshop Meeting
Discussion of consent and regular items.
Discussion of minor plats. (as necessary)
Items.
Discussion of recent City Council actions. (as necessary)
Discussion and possible action of future agenda items .
Adjourn.
B. Reaular Meetina
Hear Citizens.
Recognition of Affidavits of Conflict-of-Interest.
Consent Agenda.
Items.
Regular Agenda.
Items.
Discussion and possible action on future agenda items.
Adjourn.
C. Order of Presentation
Generally, regular items on the agenda shall adhere to the following
sequence, unless modified as necessary by the Chair:
Public Hearing Items:
0 Presentation of staff report
0 Questions of staff by the Commission
0 Open Public Hearing
0 Applicant invited to address the Commission
0 Public invited to address the Commission
0 Close Public Hearing
0 Discussion and Action by the Commission
P&Z Rules of Procedure SeptembeF 12, 2006 Page 3 of 5
Non-Public Hearing Items:
0 Presentation of staff report
0 Questions of staff by the Commission
0 Applicant invited to address the Commission at the discretion of the Chair
0 Discussion and Action by the Commission
4.6 Rules of Order
The Commission shall adopt Robert's Rules of Order for the conduct of its meetings.
4.7 Minutes
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall keep minutes of its proceedings, showing
the vote of each member upon each question, or, if absent or failing to vote,
indicating that fact and shall keep records of its examinations and other official
actions, all of which shall be immediately filed in the office of the Administrator and
shall be a public record. Minutes shall be signed by the Chairman after the
Commission approves them.
4.8 Staff
The Administrator shall provide staff, as needed, to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
4.9 City Attorney
The City Attorney is the legal advisor of and attorney for the City and all offices and
departments. The Administrator shall consult and cooperate with the City Attorney
on legal issues pertaining to planning, zoning and related matters. The City Attorney
or his/her designee shall attend all Planning and Zoning meetings.
Article 5. Continuing Education
5.1 Continuing Education
As citizen volunteers appointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission,
Commissioners are encouraged to attend training and continuing education
opportunities, as provided by the City of College Station, the Texas Chapter of the
American Planning Association, or other professional organizations where Continuing
Education Units (CEUs) may be obtained.
5.2 Annual Training
Orientation will occur eig aig aniqua4when new appointments are made basis to train
new members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. This ^-'^^}atien will
Article 6. Amendments
6.1 Amendments
The Commission may amend the Rules of Procedure at its discretion by a majority
vote of the Commission.
P&Z Rules of Procedure SeptembeF 12, 2006 Page 4 of 5
6.2 Conflict
In the case of any conflict between any Ordinance or applicable law and these Rules,
the Ordinance or applicable law shall take precedence.
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this -1-2� day of S^ptembe~, 2006.
APPROVED:
Chair
Planning and Zoning Commission
ATTEST:
Geigigie Heeks, City Secretary
P&Z Rules of Procedure SeptengbeF 12,z Page 5 of 5
(*400r� AGENDA
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Home of Texas A&M Universiey"
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 6, 20149 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1101 TEXAS AVENUE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
I. Call meeting to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Hear Citizens. At this time, the Chairman will open the floor to citizens wishing to
address the Commission on planning and zoning issues not already scheduled on tonight's
agenda. The citizen presentations will be limited to three minutes in order to
accommodate everyone who wishes to address the Commission and to allow adequate
time for completion of the agenda items. The Commission will receive the information,
ask city staff to look into the matter, or will place the matter on a future agenda for
discussion. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give your name and address for
the record.)
All matters listed under Item 4, Consent Agenda, are considered routine by the Planning &
Zoning 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. There will not
be separate discussion of these items. If any Commissioner desires to discuss an item on the
Consent Agenda it will be moved to the Regular Agenda for further consideration.
4. Consent Agenda
4.1 Consideration, possible action, and discussion to approve Meeting Minutes.
• February 18, 2014—Retreat
• February 20, 2014—Workshop
• February 20, 2014—Regular
4.2 Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat for Castlegate
II Section 102 consisting of 26 single-family residential lots on approximately 6.3
acres located at 4202 W.S. Phillips Parkway, generally located west of the
Castlegate Subdivision. Case#13-00900142 (J. Paz)
Regular Agenda
5. Consideration, possible action, and discussion on items removed from the Consent
Agenda by Commission action.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a waiver request to Unified
Development Ordinance Section 8.3.H.2 "Platting and Replatting within Older
Residential Subdivisions", and a public hearing, presentation, possible action, and
discussion on a Final Plat for Woodland Acres Subdivision Lots 8A-8D being a replat of
Woodland Acres Subdivision Lot 8 consisting of four single-family lots on
approximately 1.6 acres located at 900 & 900A Ashburn. Case #14-00900006 (M.
Hester)
7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat of the
FS Kapchinski Subdivision Lots 12R1-12R3, Block 2 being a Replat of the FS
Kapchinski Subdivision, Lot 12, Block 2, consisting of three single-family lots on
approximately one acre, located at 1635 Park Place, and more generally located west of
Systek Computing. Case#14-00900023 (J. Schubert)
8. 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.
9. Adjourn.
Consultation with Attorney{Gov't Code Section 551.0711;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.
Notice is hereby given that a Regular Meeting of the College Station Planning&Zoning Commission,College Station,Texas will be held
on March 6,2014 at 7:00 p.m.at City Hall Council Chambers,1101 Texas Avenue,College Station,Texas. The following subjects will
be discussed,to wit: See Agenda.
Posted this the day of February,2014,at
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS
By:
Sherry Mashburn,City Secretary
By:
Kelly Templin,City Manager
I,the undersigned,do hereby certify that the above Notice of Meeting of the Planning& Zoning Commission of the City of College
Station,Texas,is a true and correct copy of said Notice and that I posted a true and correct copy of said notice on the bulletin board at
City Hall, 1101 Texas Avenue, in College Station, Texas, and the City's website,www.cstx.gov. The Agenda and Notice are readily
accessible to the general public at all times. Said Notice and Agenda were posted on February.2014,at and remained so
posted continuously for at least 72 hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
This public notice was removed from the official posting board at the College Station City Hall on the following date and time:
by
Dated this day of 2014.
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS
By
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the day of 2014.
Notary Public-Brazos County,Texas
My commission expires:
This building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive service mast be made
48 hours before the meeting. To make arrangements call (979) 764-3541 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989. Agendas may be viewed on
www.cstx.gov.Planning and Zoning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Cable Access Channel 19.
(*Arqi44
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
FINAL PLAT
for
Castlegate II Sec 102
13-00900142
SCALE: 26 lots on 6.26 acres
LOCATION: 4015 Muncaster Lane
ZONING: GS General Suburban
APPLICANT: Wallace Phillips IV, 3-D Development LLC
PROJECT MANAGER: Jenifer Paz, Staff Planner
jpaz@cstx.gov
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat.
Planning &Zoning Commission Page 1 of 3
March 6, 2014
�1 �� _��� X111 c�� � 7tyE'� `- � t-�•�
' ,v a"• s .": .<. �v .Y M^`f7F+;#1 C5+'•a' � �-�1 � R^ � "P y'�`�.`�. • � '��F.l• ��p, �, `
NN
S� ! t C�
m O
5
Lu
LU
ui
a
k
v.
.� w
* 1 s y,, w
o
Planning &Zoning Commission Page 2 of 3
March 6, 2014
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Annexation: 1995
Zoning: A-O Agricultural (upon annexation) to A-O Agricultural Open and
R-1 Single-Family Residential (2007), R-1 Single-Family
Residential renamed GS General Suburban (2013).
Preliminary Plat: Castlegate II preliminary plat was approved in January 2011 and
subsequently revised in March 2012.
Site Development: Section 203-205 infrastructure is currently under construction, and
sections 100-101 and 200-202 are currently platted with homes
under construction.
COMMENTS
Parkland Dedication: Land dedication was provided with the first Final Plat of the
Castlegate II subdivision and the developer is currently
constructing neighborhood park improvements. Community
Parkland dedication fees of$16,250 (26 lots X $625) are due prior
to filing of the Final Plat.
Greenways: N/A
Pedestrian Connectivity: Sidewalks are required and will be provided on both sides of all
thoroughfares and on one side of all local streets. In addition,
sidewalks are proposed to be provided in designated common
areas throughout the development.
Bicycle Connectivity: Bike lanes will be provided along W.S. Phillips Parkway.
Impact Fees: The subject tract is located in the Spring Creek Sanitary Sewer
Impact Fee Area and will be assessed $98.39 per Living Unit
Equivalent (LUE).
REVIEW CRITERIA
Compliance with Subdivision Regulations: The proposed Final Plat is in compliance with the
Subdivision Requirements contained in the Unified Development Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. Application
2. Copy of Final Plat
Planning &Zoning Commission Page 3 of 3
March 6, 2014
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO.:
DATE SU BJM ITT&M
w
CITY OF COILEGE STATION TIME:
Home of Texas A&M University' STAFF:
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
(Check one) ❑ Minor ❑ Amending ❑X Final ❑ vacating ❑Replat
($700) ($700) ($932) ($932) ($932)
Is this plat in the ETJ? ❑ Yes ❑ No Is this plat Commercial ❑ or Residential ❑X
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
.�. $7004932 Final Plat Application Fee(see above).
pff] $233 Waiver Request to Subdivision Regulations Fee (if applicable).
$600 (minimum) Development Permit Application / Public Infrastructure Review and Inspection Fee. Fee is
1% of acceptable Engineer's Estimate for public infrastructure, $600 minimum (if fee is> $600, the balance is
:'due prior to the issuance of any plans or development permit).
J9 Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and
may not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if additional information is provided.
? r Fourteen (14)folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after approval.)
two(2) copies of the grading,drainage,and erosion control plans with supporting drainage report.
Two(2)copies of the Public infrastructure plans and supporting documents (if applicable).
p1 F],,Copy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats (if applicable).
Title report for property current within ninety (90) days or accompanied by a Nothing Further Certificate
current within ninety (90) days. The report must include applicable information such as ownership, liens,
encumbrances, etc.
Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station I.S.D.
❑x The attached Final Plat checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
NOTE: A mylar of the approved preliminary plan must be on file before a final plat application will be considered
complete. If the mylar is submitted with the final plat application, it shall be considered a submittal for the
preliminary plan project and processed and reviewed as such. Until the mylar has been confirmed by staff
to be correct, the final plat application will be considered incomplete.
Date of Optional Preapplication or Stormwater Management Conference N/A
NAME OF PROJECT Castlegate 11 Subdivision-Section 102
ADDRESS Intersection of W. S. Phillips Parkway and Victoria Avenue
SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLAT:
Northwest of Castlegate 11 Subdivision, Section 101
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project):
Name Wallace Phillips IV E-mail dustyphillips52@yahoo.com
Street Address 4490 Castlegate Drive
City College Station State TX — Zip Code 77845
Phone Number 979.690.7250 Fax Number 979.690.1041
1/11 Page 1 of 9
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORt .'ION (All owners must be identified. Pie,--- attach an additional sheet for multiple
owners):
Name 3-D Development, LLC E-mail dustyphillips52@yahoo.com
Street Address 4490 Castlegate Drive
City College Station State TX Zip Code 77845
Phone Number 979.690.7250 Fax Number 979.690.1041
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
Name Schultz Engineering, LLC-Joe Schultz E-mail loeschultz84@verizon.net
Street Address 2730 Longmire Drive, Suite A
City College Station State TX Zip Code 77845
Phone Number 979.764.3900 Fax Number 979.764.3910
Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? ❑X Yes ❑ No
Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume 10392 and Page No. 276
Total Acreage 6.263 Total No. of Lots 26 R-O-W Acreage 1.108
Existing Use Agricultural- Vacnat Proposed Use Single Family Residential
Number of Lots By Zoning District 26 / R1
Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
0.198 / R1
Floodplain Acreage n/a
Is there Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A or Zone AE on FEMA FIRM panels) on the property? F"" Yes rX No
This information is necessary to help staff identify the appropriate standards to review the application and will be used to
help determine if the application qualifies for vesting to a previous ordinance. Notwithstanding any assertion made,
vesting is limited to that which is provided in Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code or other applicable law.
Is this application a continuation of a project that has received prior City platting approval(s) and you are requesting the
application be reviewed under previous ordinance as applicable?
F Yes
F No
If yes, provide information regarding the first approved application and any related subsequent applications (provide
additional sheets if necessary):
Project Name: Castlegate II Preliminary Plat
City Project Number(if known): 12-00500004
Date/Timeframe when submitted: January 2012
1/11 Page 2 of 9
A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and Preliminary Plan (if applicable):
one
Requested waiver to subdivision regulations and reason for same (if applicable):
none
Regarding the waiver request, explain how:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the
subdivision regulations will deprive he applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
2. The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
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 subdivision regulations.
4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in
accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Fee in lieu of sidewalk construction is being requested because of the following condition (if applicable):
1. [ An alternative pedestrian way or multi-use path has been or will be provided outside the right-of-way;
2. r The presence of unique or unusual topographic, vegetative, or other natural conditions exist so that strict
adherence to the sidewalk requirements of the UDO is not physically feasible or is not in keeping with the
purposes and goals of the UDO or the City's comprehensive Plan;
3. F_J1 A capital improvement project is imminent that will include construction of the required sidewalk. Imminent shall
mean the project is funded or projected to commence within twelve (12) months;
4. r Existing streets constructed to rural section that are not identified on the Thoroughfare Plan with an estate/
rural context;
5. F7. When a sidewalk is required along a street where a multi-use path is shown on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Master Plan;
1/11 Page 3 of 9
6. F-; The proposed development is within an older residential subdivision meeting the criteria in Platting and
Replatting within Older Residential Subdivisions Section of the UDO; or
7. F—j The proposed development contains frontage on a Freeway I Expressway as designated by Map 6.6,
Thoroughfare Plan- Functional Classification, in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Detailed explanation of condition identified above:
NOTE: A waiver to the sidewalk requirements and fee in lieu of sidewalk construction shall not be considered at the
same time by the Planning &Zoning Commission.
Requested Oversize Participation
Total Linear Footage of Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat:
Proposed Public:
1330 Streets ACREAGE:
1950Sidewalks No. of acres to be dedicated +$ development fee
742Sanitary Sewer Lines No. of acres in floodplain
1141Water Lines No. of acres in detention
- Channels No. of acres in greenways
1148OR
Storm Sewers
- Bike Lanes/Paths FEE IN LIEU OF LAND:
No. of SF Dwelling Units X$ _ $
(date)Approved by Parks& Recreation Advisory 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. IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is more
than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the application
must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. LIEN
HOLDERS identified in the title report are also considered owners and the appropriate signatures must be provided as
described above.
G7/� P9� iiz 3� I3
Signature and title Date
1/11 Page 4 of 9
SC' Y&p
��H��5�5
a? $
19 it,
's'$a �S!•S77 ��� z$g$ � Q € Q�Ys �q mi
�a
E4
t %g���qqpY q �Q a s Q g tEgy6- g�$ nxg�a� �
y9a p @ @ a E $@ @ @ 9g as $$ IRY F+1 F
E 3ffi W
B sqY all
IN��3g'q=p�p
6Y g;2$MIN$�E A% 18
"clo1
8� p
t.� f•€ I n .^ ?: � g fig&
yyxg3x $
Vis•-s`� _ a zs" - §�g i og f� I�
s"i� EG itz sa 4 i
ala- -
�
24!'s 4asa 8 D3 4'v
6 wq].s]]y] iE4 AiC�B3�CFd Ga w�
laL038S30�.'='ao
I�
— I — — 'J89 :
ti
29a3
1
it
-
�,� 13 -
1
—
z�a
I xr.
§ -309.95 mss`
s84�
Via$
��n
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
FINAL PLAT
for
Woodland Acres Lots 8A-8D
Being a Replat of
Woodland Acres Subdivision Lot 8 (NE Part)
14-00900006
SCALE: Four lots on approximately 1.6 acres
LOCATION: 900 & 900A Ashburn Ave
ZONING: GS General Suburban
APPLICANT: Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan, LLP
PROJECT MANAGER: Morgan Hester, Staff Planner
mhester@cstx.gov
PROJECT OVERVIEW: The proposal is to replat one building plot into four single-family
residential lots. The applicant is a waiver to the lot width for each
of the proposed lots.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the lot width waivers based on the
Comprehensive Plan and Eastgate Neighborhood Plan
recommendations. If the Planning & Zoning Commission
approves the waivers, the replat will be in compliance with the
remaining Subdivision Regulations and Staff would recommend
approval. If the waiver requests are denied, the Final Plat must be
denied.
Planning &Zoning Commission Page 1 of 4
March 6, 2014
\
y� ±
CD
Cu
CO
«:� 4
\ �� z• �
\
Ed
\y
»«« ~ / /
a �
/ 1
x : § �
. >
w .
of
\
/
±
\
~ i �
\
/
>
g
» > « �
. » : . .
Planning &Zoning Commission Page 224
March 6, 2014
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Annexation: February 1956
Zoning: GS General Suburban
Preliminary Plat: 1938
Site Development: The building plot is currently developed with two single-family
structures.
COMMENTS
Parkland Dedication: Dedication will be assessed on three newly established single-
family lots for a total of$3,783.
Greenways: No dedication is proposed or required with this plat.
Pedestrian Connectivity: A 5-foot sidewalk will be constructed along Lincoln Avenue.
Bicycle Connectivity: A bicycle lane currently exists on Lincoln Avenue.
Impact Fees: N/A
REVIEW CRITERIA
Compliance with Subdivision Regulations: Section 12-8.3.H.2 `Platting and Replatting within
Older Residential Subdivisions' of the Unified Development Ordinance states that a plat
involving a building plot created prior to June 1970, which creates an additional lot or building
plot, must meet or exceed the average lot width within the block and each lot must be at least
8,500 square feet in area.
The proposed Final Plat requires a waiver to Section 12-8.3.H.2 regarding lot width
requirements for platting in older subdivisions. The average lot width within the subject block is
approximately 219 linear feet. The four lots being created require the following waivers:
Lot Number Proposed Lot Width Waiver Requested
Lot 8A 143 feet 76 feet
Lot 813 80.5 feet 138.5 feet
Lot 8C 78 feet 141 feet
Lot 8D 78 feet 141 feet
The Eastgate Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 2011 with significant community participation
with an emphasis to maintain the existing character of the neighborhood. Through the planning
process, the subject property was designated as Neighborhood Conservation Area 1 — College
Hills Estates. The residents of this area also expressed a desire to preserve the existing
neighborhood character.
Planning &Zoning Commission Page 3 of 4
March 6, 2014
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;
Additional requirements are in place for this property due to its designation on the
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Character Map as Neighborhood Conservation.
2) That the waivers are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant;
The waiver is necessary for the property to further subdivide into lots less than 219 feet
wide. Although the property is nonconforming, as it has two structures on one building plot,
it may currently be used as is.
3) That the granting of the waivers 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
Two structures are currently located on the subject property. Although this use is
nonconforming, it is grandfathered, and is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare. By further subdividing the property to accommodate two additional structures,
necessary utilities will be available to serve the newly created lots.
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.
The granting of the requested waivers will not affect the future orderly subdivision of
property in the area. The College Hills Estates subdivision was originally platted in 1938 and
many of the lots have become commonly owned, which has increased the average lot width.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends denial of the lot width waivers based on the Comprehensive Plan and
Eastgate Neighborhood Plan recommendations. If the Planning & Zoning Commission
approves the waivers, the replat will be in compliance with the remaining Subdivision
Regulations and Staff would recommend approval. If the waiver requests are denied, the Final
Plat must be denied.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. Application
2. Correspondence in opposition of request
3. Copy of Final Plat
Planning &Zoning Commission Page 4 of 4
March 6, 2014
t
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO.:
DATE SUBMITTED: 101 1, �
TIME:
C,lrIr) OF C,OLLI;C&,S'TA'TION
STAFF:
[torte of Tevas Av M i Unii ery"
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
(Check one) ❑ Minor ❑ Amending ❑ Final ❑ vacating ❑X Replat
($700) ($700) ($932) ($932) ($932)
Is this plat in the ETJ? ❑ Yes ❑X No Is this plat Commercial ❑ or Residential XO
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
$700-$932 Final Plat Application Fee (see above).
V$633 Waiver Request to Subdivision Regulations Fee (if applicable).
00 (minimum) Development Permit Application / Public Infrastructure Review and Inspection Fee. Fee is
1%of acceptable Engineer's Estimate for public infrastructure, $600 minimum (if fee is >$600, the balance is
e prior to the issuance of any plans or development permit).
X Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and
,Iflay not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if additional information is provided.
tX Fourteen (14)folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after approval.)
wo (2) copies of the grading, drainage, and erosion control plans with supporting drainage report.
Two (2) copies of the Public infrastructure plans and supporting documents(if applicable).
Copy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats (if applicable).
Two
report for property current within ninety (90) days or accompanied by a Nothing Further Certificate
urrent within ninety (90) days. The report must include applicable information such as ownership, liens,
encumbrances, etc.
Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station I.S.D.
The attached Final Plat checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
NOTE: A mylar of the approved preliminary plan must be on file before a final plat application will be considered
complete. If the mylar is submitted with the final plat application, it shall be considered a submittal for the
preliminary plan project and processed and reviewed as such. Until the mylar has been confirmed by staff
to be correct, the final plat application will be considered incomplete.
Date of Optional Preapplication or Stormwater Management Conference
NAME OF PROJECT 900 Ashburn
ADDRESS 900 Ashburn Avenue
SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLAT:
Corner of Lincoln Avenue and Ashburn Avnue
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project):
Name Veronica J.B. Morgan, PE, CFM E-mail v@mitchellandmorgan.com
Street Address 511 University Drive East, Suite 204
City College Station State Texas Zip Code 77840
Phone Number 979-260-6963 Fax Number 979-260-3564
1/11 Page 1 of 9
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (All owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple
owners):
Name BNL Builders LLC E-mail ma/lett78@gmail.com
Street Address 28502 Ravens Prairie Dr
City Katy State Texas Zip Code 77494
Phone Number 832-797-7442 Fax Number 281-828-0220
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
Name Veronica J.B. Morgan, PE, CFM E-mail v@mitchellandmorgan.com
Street Address 511 University Drive East, Suite 204
City College Station State Texas Zip Code 77840
Phone Number 979-260-6963 Fax Number 979-260-3564
Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? ❑ Yes ❑x No
Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume NIA and Page No.
Total Acreage 1.597 Total No. of Lots 4 R-O-W Acreage 0
Existing Use Single Family/Vacant Proposed Use Single Family
Number of Lots By Zoning District 4 / GS
Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
.399 / GS
Floodplain Acreage 0 Acres
Is there Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A or Zone AE on FEMA FIRM panels) on the property? � Yes X No
This information is necessary to help staff identify the appropriate standards to review the application and will be used to
help determine if the application qualifies for vesting to a previous ordinance. Notwithstanding any assertion made,
vesting is limited to that which is provided in Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code or other applicable law.
Is this application a continuation of a project that has received prior City platting approval(s) and you are requesting the
application be reviewed under previous ordinance as applicable?
Yes
X No
If yes, provide information regarding the first approved application and any related subsequent applications (provide
additional sheets if necessary):
Project Name: N/A
City Project Number(if known): N/A
Date/Timeframe when submitted: N/A
1/11 Page 2 of 9
A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and Preliminary Plan (if applicable):
F/A
Requested waiver to subdivision regulations and reason for same(if applicable):
See attached letter.
Regarding the waiver request, explain how:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the
subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
See attached letter.
2. The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
See attached letter.
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 subdivision regulations.
See attached letter.
4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in
accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance.
See attached letter.
Fee in lieu of sidewalk construction is being requested because of the following condition (if applicable):
1.OtAAn alternative pedestrian way or multi-use path has been or will be provided outside the right-of-way;
2.1J/jkThe presence of unique or unusual topographic, vegetative, or other natural conditions exist so that strict
adherence to the sidewalk requirements of the UDO is not physically feasible or is not in keeping with the
purposes and goals of the UDO or the City's comprehensive Plan;
3.� capital improvement project is imminent that will include construction of the required sidewalk. Imminent shall
mean the project is funded or projected to commence within twelve (12) months;
4.PIAExisting streets constructed to rural section that are not identified on the Thoroughfare Plan with an estate/
rural context;
5.P�AWhen a sidewalk is required along a street where a multi-use path is shown on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Master Plan;
1/11 Page 3 of 9
6. N�rhe proposed development is within an older residential subdivision meeting the criteria in Platting and
Replatting within Older Residential Subdivisions Section of the UDO:or
7. N11'The proposed development contains frontage on a Freeway/Expressway as designated by Map 6.6,
Thoroughfare Plan-Functional Classification, in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Detailed explanation of condition identified above:
N/A
NOTE: A waiver to the sidewalk requirements and fee in lieu of sidewalk construction shall not be considered at the
same time by the Planning 8 Zoning Commission.
Requested Oversize Participation No
—�
Total Linear Footage of Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat:
Proposed Public:
ACREAGE:
I 0 Streets
580 Sidewalks NIA No.of acres to be dedicated+$ NIA development fee
- �
0 No.of acres in floodplain
Sanitary Sewer Lines NIA
0 Water Lines N/A
No. of acres in detention
0 Channels NIA No. of acres in greenways
0 I OR
Storm Sewers
0 FEE IN LIEU OF LAND: f
[Bike Lanes/Paths
3 No. of SF Dwelling Units X$ 1,261 = $ 3,783
119/2014 (date)Approved by Parks&Recreation Advisory 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. 1F THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is more
than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the application
must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. LIEN
HOLDERS identified in the fit/e report are also considered owners and the appropriate signatures must be provided as
described above-
;ea
bove.
e an title Date
1/11
Page 4 of 9
CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT
Owner Certification:
1. No work of any kind may start until a permit is issued.
2. The permit may be revoked if any false statements are made herein.
3. If revoked,all work must cease until permit is re-issued.
4. Development shall not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
5. The permit will expire if no significant work is progressing within 24 months of issuance.
6. Other permits may be required to fulfill local,state,and federal requirements.Owner will obtain or show
compliance with all necessary State and Federal Permits prior to construction including NO( and SWPPP.
7. If required, Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction(forms at slab pre-
pour)and post construction.
8. Owner hereby gives consent to City representatives to make reasonable inspections required to verify
compliance.
9. If,stormwater mitigation is required, including detention ponds proposed as part of this project, it shall be
designed and constructed first in the construction sequence of the project.
10. In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken
to insure that all debris from construction,erosion,and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets,or
existing drainage facilities.All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to
and approved by the City Engineer for the above named project.All of the applicable codes and ordinances of the
City of College Station shall apply.
11_ The information and conclusions contained in the attached plans and supporting documents will comply with the
current requirements of the City of College Station,Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and associated BCS Unified
Design Guidelines Technical Specifications,and Standard Details.All development has been designed in
accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station and State and Federal
Regulations.
12. Release of plans to____ (name or firm)is authorized for bidding purposes
only. I understand that final approval and release of plans and development for construction is contingent on
contractor signature on approved Development Permit.
13. I,THE OWNER,AGREE TO AND CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN,AND IN ATTACHMENTS FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION,ARE,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,TRUE,AND
ACCURATE.
Property Owner(s) Da
Engineer Certification:
1. The project has been designed to ensure that stormwater mitigation,including detention ponds, proposed as part
of the project will be constructed first in the construction sequence.
2. 1 will obtain or can show compliance with all necessary Local, State and Federal Permits prior to construction
including NO[and SWPPP. Design will not preclude compliance with TPOES: i,e., projects over 10 acres may
require a sedimentation basin.
3. The information and conclusions contained in the attached plans and supporting documents comply with the
current requirements of the City of College Station,Texas City Code,Chapter 13 and associated BCS Unified
Design Guidelines.All development has been designed in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances
of the City of College Station and State and Federal Regulations.
4. I, THE ENGINEER,AGREE TO AND CER*Y THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN,AND IN ATTACHMENTS
F61R THE DEVELOPMENT PERMI 0 Q ARE,TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE,TRUE,AND
ACCURATE.
N2 ,`kl
Engineer ` .! F .......Zi 77689.......:; --—
0 ate
#�tks�ONAI. C,►
v}t
Page 5 of 9
The following CERTIFICATIONS apply to development in Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Required for Site Plans, Final Plats, Construction Plans, Fill /Grading Permits, and Clearing Only
Permits:*
A. I, certify, as demonstrated in the attached drainage study, that the
alterations or development covered by this permit, shall not:
(i) increase the Base Flood elevation;
(ii) create additional areas of Special Flood Hazard Area;
(iii) decrease the conveyance capacity to that part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is not in the floodway
and where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood event is greater than one foot per second. This area can
also be approximated to be either areas within 100 feet of the boundary of the regulatory floodway or
areas where the depth of from the BFE to natural ground is 18 inches or greater;
(iv) reduce the Base Flood water storage volume to the part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is beyond
the floodway and conveyance area where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood is equal to and less than
one foot per second without acceptable compensation as set forth in the City of College Station Code of
Ordinances, Chapter 13 concerning encroachment into the Special Flood Hazard Area; nor
(v) increase Base Flood velocities.
beyond those areas exempted by ordinance in Section 5.11.3a of Chapter 13 Code of Ordinances.
Q jv, N 1A
Engineer Date
Initial
F-1
* If a platting-status exemption to this requirement is asserted, provide written justification under separate
letter in lieu of certification.
Required for Site Plans, Final Plats, Construction Plans, and Fill / Grading Permits:
B. I, NIA , certify to the following:
(i) that any nonresidential or multi-family structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application is
designed to prevent damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100-year storm.
N(A O�A
Engineer Date
Additional certification for Floodway Encroachments:
C. I, o /A , certify that the construction, improvement, or fill covered by this
permit shall not increase the base flood elevation. I will apply for a variance to the Zoning Board of Adjustments.
Engineer Date
1/11 Page 6 of 9
Required for all projects proposing structures in Special Flood Hazard Area (Elevation Certificate
required).
Residential Structures:
D. I, 01 � , certify that all new construction or any substantial improvement
of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including all utilities, ductwork and any basement, at an
elevation at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation. Required Elevation Certificates will be provided with
elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-pour) and post construction.
NIPS N � �
Engineer/ Surveyor Date
Commercial Structures:
E. I, Q 1 f� , certify that all new construction or any substantial improvement
of any commercial, industrial, or other non-residential structure are designed to have the lowest floor, including all
utilities, ductwork and basements, elevated at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation
Nle Nle
Engineer/ Surveyor Date
OR
I, N f certify that the structure with its attendant utility, ductwork,
basement and sanitary facilities is designed to be flood-proofed so that the structure and utilities, ductwork,
basement and sanitary facilities are designed to be watertight and impermeable to the intrusion of water in all
areas below the Base Flood Elevation, and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from the
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic conditions.
Required Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-
pour) and post construction.
W I�- Nei A-
Engineer/ Surveyor Date
Conditions or comments as part of approval:
1/11 Page 7 of 9
FINAL PLAT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(ALL CITY ORDINANCES MUST BE MET)
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
(Requirements based on field survey and marked by monuments and markers.)
❑X Drawn on 24"x 36"sheet to scale of 100' per inch.
0 Vicinity map which includes enough of surrounding area to show general location of subject property in
relationship to College Station and its City Limits. No scale required but include north arrow.
❑x Title Block with the following information:
❑X Name and address of subdivider, recorded owner, planner, engineer and surveyor.
❑X Proposed name of subdivision. (Subdivision name & street names will be approved through Brazos
County 911.)
❑X Date of preparation.
❑X Engineer's scale in feet.
❑X Total area intended to be developed.
❑X North Arrow.
❑X Subdivision boundary indicated by heavy lines.
1V' If more than 1 sheet, an index sheet showing entire subdivision at a scale of 500 feet per inch or
larger.
❑x All applicable certifications based on the type of final plat.
❑X Ownership and Dedication
❑X Surveyor and/or Engineer
❑X City Engineer(and City Planner, if a minor plat)
❑x Planning and Zoning Commission (delete if minor plat)
❑X Brazos County Clerk
Brazos County Commissioners Court Approval (ETJ Plats only)
❑ If submitting a replat where there are existing improvements, submit a survey of the subject property
showing the improvements to ensure that no encroachments will be created.
If using private septic systems, add a general note on the plat that no private sewage facility may be
installed on any lot in this subdivision without the issuance of a license by the Brazos County
Health Unit under the provisions of the private facility regulations adopted by the Commissioner's
Court of Brazos County, pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.084 of the Texas Water Code.
❑X Location of the 100-Year Floodplain and floodway, if applicable, according to the most recent available
data.
0 Lot corner markers and survey monuments (by symbol)and clearly tied to basic survey data.
Matches the approved preliminary plan or qualifies as minor amendments (UDO Section 3.3.E.2).
❑ The location and description with accurate dimensions, bearings or deflection angles and radii, area, center
angle, degree of curvature, tangent distance and length of all curves for all of the
following: (Show existing items that are intersecting or contiguous with the boundary of or forming a
boundary with the subdivision, as well as,those within the subdivision).
Existing Proposed
❑X (�Ft'� Streets. Continuous or end in a cul-de-sac, stubbed out streets must end into a temp
turn around unless they are shorter than 100 feet.
0 Public and private R.O.W. locations and widths. (All existing and proposed R.O.W.'s
sufficient to meet Thoroughfare Plan.)
Street offsets and/or intersection angles meet ordinance.
1/11 Page 8 of 9
Exi-
sting Proposed
rl�d► Alleys.
Easements.
x 0 A number or letter to identify each lot or site and each block(numbered sequentially).
opt Parkland dedication/greenbelt area/park linkages. All proposed dedications must be
reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and documentation of their
recommendation provided prior to being scheduled for P&Z Commission consideration.
❑x Construction documents for all public infrastructure drawn on 24"x 36" sheets and properly
sealed by a Licensed Texas Professional Engineer that include the following:
❑x Street, alley and sidewalk plans, profiles and sections. One sheet must show the overall
street, alley and/or sidewalk layout of the subdivision. (may be combined with other
utilities).
wit Sewer Design Report.
Sanitary sewer plan and profile showing depth and grades. One sheet must show the
overall sewer layout of the subdivision. (Utilities of sufficient size/depth to meet the utility
master plan and any future growth areas.)
( Water Design Report and/or Fire Flow Report.
�[ Water line plan showing fire hydrants, valves, etc. with plan and profile lines showing
depth and grades. One sheet must show the overall water layout of the subdivision.
(Utilities of sufficient size/depth to meet the utility master plan and any future growth
areas.)
Storm drainage system plan with contours, street profile, inlets, storm sewer and
drainage channels, with profiles and sections. Drainage and runoff areas, and runoff
based on 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year rain intensity. Detailed drainage structure design,
channel lining design & detention if used. One sheet must show the overall drainage
layout of the subdivision.
0 Detailed cost estimates for all public infrastructure listed above sealed by Texas P.E.
Letter of completion for public infrastructure or guarantee/surety in accordance with UDO
Section 8.6.
Drainage Report with a Technical Design Summary.
Fx-i Erosion Control Plan (must be included in construction plans).
All off-site easements necessary for infrastructure construction must be shown on the final plat with a
volume and page listed to indicate where the separate instrument easements were filed.
Separate instrument easements must be provided in recordable form to the City prior to being scheduled
for P&Z Commission consideration.
n Are there impact fees associated with this development? ❑ Yes No
Impact fees must be paid prior to building permit.
Fx] Will any construction occur in TxDOT rights-of-way? ❑ Yes 0 No
If yes, TxDOT permit must be submitted along with the construction documents.
NOTE: 1. We will be requesting the corrected Final Plat to be submitted in digital form if available prior to filing
the plat at the Courthouse.
2. If the construction area is greater than 5 acres, EPA Notice of Intent(NOI) must be submitted prior to
issuance of a development permit.
Print Form
1/11 Page 9 or 9
MITCHELL
. W .►y�
City of College Station MORGAN January 13, 2014
Development Services
1101 Texas Ave. S.
College Station,TX 77840
RE:Subdivision Regulation Waiver Request Letter—900 ASHBURN
To whom it may concern,
This letter is to serve as background information and explanation for support of 2 subdivision regulation
variance requests.
Variance #1: Minumum Lot Dimension within Older Residential Subdivisions
The current subdivision regulations require that when creating new lots within older residential
subdivisions that 2 things occur:
1. Each lot contain a minimum of 8,500 square feet and
2. Each lots street frontage must meet or exceed the average width of the lots within the
block
The lots as proposed in this replat all exceed the 8,500 square feet. However, because of several large
lots within the block bounded by Lincoln, Ashburn, Francis, Walton and Nunn these newly created lots
do not meet or exceed the average width of the lots within the block.
There are currently 2 houses constructed on the property. At the time of construction of these houses,
if the property had been properly platted these 2 lots along Ashburn would have 143 feet and 80.5 feet,
respectively. These residences have been in existence for many years and the neighborhood has
experienced the impacts resulting from these 2 structures for over 20 years. We are not requesting that
we subdivide the property along Ashburn, thus creating an additional lot to add a structure. We are
requesting that we be allowed to subdivide the property further along Lincoln and create 2 lots along
Lincoln Avenue, away from the neighborhood. These 2 additional lots will have widths of 78 feet each,
similar in size the one 80.5 foot lot on Ashburn and much larger than the lots across Lincoln from the
property that measure approximately 40 feet in width each.
The existing 1.597 acre property sits at the corner of Ashburn and Lincoln Avenue. The existing property
consists of one home site with a "mother-in-law" unit. This property has seen an increase in traffic
along Lincoln Avenue due to an increase in development activities in College Station in recent years.
The property has had a difficult time selling given its large size (1.6 acres) and the amount of traffic it
experiences at the corner of Lincoln and Ashburn. The existing structures are currently in a state of
disrepair and they have been in that situation for nearly 10 years. The applicant would like to upgrade
and repair the structures but in order to make the project work financially must have 2 additional lots to
sell as single family residential property which will be reinvested into the upgrade of the 2 existing
structures. Adding only 2 additional single family homes on the property will still allow each lot to
exceed the 8,500 square foot minimum and the lot frontage is similar in size to the existing structure at
the corner of Ashburn and Lincoln and well exceeds the lot sizes that exist across Lincoln.
Strict application of the subdivision regulation in this case will prevent the upgrade and repair of the
existing structures on the property.
511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST, SUITE 204• COLLEGE STATION,TX 77840. 979 260 6963• P 979 260 3564
CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS
info@mitchellandmorgan com www.mitchelland morgan com
�-----rr --- - _ —� - - - — ° o
r,
0
at
O
x�o � w m N=
Q Ck
�. gl d o a�
iW IA m Lij m %gym
I I I
I I I do
g R\ ISO = a erg$
J
s'�^ mg 531Wn'M'Otl 6R E
_m WNW MOONn
73L m�
sr e
3�^
Yyo E yy5
6
Li
u1 8: (D
gas
� yF
53INYh`M11.0'N _
3� 3f1N3AV MOONS
Morgan Hester
Subject: FW: 900 & 900A Ashburn Replat
From: Leslie
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:23 PM
To: Morgan Hester
Subject: RE: 900 &900A Ashburn Replat
Hello Morgan,
Could you please include the following response in the Planning & Zoning packet?
Thanks,
Leslie Miller
Dear Planning &Zoning:
Our family are residents of 1112 Ashburn and have lived there for 14 years. We would like to respectfully express our
concern and opposition to the replat of 900 Ashburn. One of the unique aspects of living on Ashburn is the ability to
have a larger lot size in the middle of the city with more space between houses and more privacy. This is a major reason
houses are bought in our neighborhood and invested in. However, a replat of this property would reduce the average
lot width for our entire street and set precedent for the potential division of other lots in the future as houses are sold.
The whole premise for a replat of this property is for the purpose of creating investment property to make a profit. This
is out of character for our neighborhood and effects the many homeowners on our street who have spent a lot of time,
money and effort to invest in their home. If this property were replated, it would encourage other developers to
purchase properties, not just on our street, but throughout our neighborhood, and attempt to have them divided for
investment purposes. I believe this practice would dramatically affect the rate of home ownership in our neighborhood,
the quality of living in our neighborhood, and the city would lose any remaining historic value of the neighborhood.
Please consider the long term investments of the homeowners of Ashburn Ave. and the surrounding area when
considering this replat and please deny the replat. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Leslie Miller
i
Morgan Hester
To: Quint Foster
Subject: RE: 900 & 900A Ashburn Replat
From: Quint Foster [mailto:puintfosterl(agmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 6:07 PM
To: Morgan Hester
Subject: Re: 900 &900A Ashburn Replat
Good afternoon Morgan,
Thank you for the information about the replat request.
As a representative of the College Hills Estates HOA I would like to weigh in.After conversing with the HOA board the
unanimous consensus is against the request. I have also sat on the Eastgate planning committee organized by the city.
As I remember, this type of replat is not supported by the plan adopted and accepted by the city council. (A plan put
together by the property owners of the area). That being said I am unsure why the owner is choosing to try this replat. I
cannot imagine the city blatantly going against the adopted plan. Please add the letter to those against the replat of
these properties.
Quint Foster
President CHHOA
Sent from my iPhone
i
Morgan Hester
To: Dale Rice
Subject: RE: 900 & 900A Ashburn Replat
From: Dale Rice
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:39 PM
To: Morgan Hester
Cc:
Subject: Re: 900 &900A Ashburn Replat
Morgan,
Antonio LaPastina and I have had the home at 1206 Ashburn Avenue for 14 years.
We moved into the neighborhood for many of the reasons listed by other residents of our street and adjacent
blocks -- the charm of this small oasis of single-family homes on large lots. As the years have passed by, we
have become more and more concerned that the city doesn't place neighborhood preservation on the same plane
that it once did, and that bothers us greatly.
Like others, we have invested time, effort and money in our home to enhance its character and the character of
the neighborhood, which we believe would be undermined by the proposed plat change.
Please put us on record as strongly opposing this latest proposal to amend the plat plan for Ashburn Avenue.
We believe it would set a bad precedent.
Thank you,
Dale Rice
i
Morgan Hester
To: Kenneth Cox
Subject: RE: 900 & 900A Ashburn Replat
From: Kenneth Cox
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:14 PM
To: Morgan Hester
Subject: Re: 900 &900A Ashburn Replat
Morgan,
Please convey our objection to the plan. We purchased a house on Walton Drive in July because of the large lot
and with the understanding that the city had put in place a neighborhood conservation plan. We have made a
significant investment in our new home and hope the zoning board maintains their stance to preserve the unique
neighborhood.
This neighborhood is at a tipping point. I believe from a business standpoint the values of the homes will
continue to increase if a strong single family emphasis is maintained- they can ebb and flow from single family
to rental back to single family. If mini dorms continue to be built-values will begin to decrease because they
will fall into an apartment style valuation - the first 5 years they are class A then B then C. All of these things
have a long term affect on the tax basis.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Katherine Cox
Sent from my iPhone
i
Morgan Hester
To: Della Stephenson
Subject: RE: 900 & 900A Ashburn Replat
From: Della Stephenson
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 12:24 PM
To: Morgan Hester
Subject: RE: 900 &900A Ashburn Replat
Dear Morgan,
Please include the following response regarding the 900 Ashburn replat in the packet for the Planning and
Zoning Commission:
Planning and Zoning Commission,
As long time residents of this neighborhood,we would like to express our opposition to the proposed replat of
900 Ashburn and respectfully request the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny this replat due to its
extreme variation from the existing neighborhood as well as the Comprehensive Plan for the neighborhood.
The City of College Station states the following regarding Neighborhood Planning:
"Neighborhood planning areas are made up of existing neighborhoods and adjacent areas,where, generally, it is
important to promote and preserve the current land uses, character, and identity. Each neighborhood plan will
be uniquely focused based on community input.."
The Comprehensive Plan for our neighborhood is fairly recent and reflects the careful planning of many of the
residents along with city planning officials to preserve the current and longstanding characteristics of this
unique neighborhood. This replat request does not meet the important requirements established in our
neighborhood's Comprehensive Plan and should be denied.
The lot currently fits in with all of the large lots on that block of Ashburn and throughout the neighborhood. The
median lot requirements were carefully planned and established to protect these large lots which are unique and
characteristic to this neighborhood. If these investors are allowed to divide it up into four small lots for rental
properties (which is what they will eventually become) then that sets a precedent for it to happen to other large
lots in our neighborhood and the median lot requirement becomes irrelevant. This will decrease our property
value and lead to the deterioration of the uniqueness of our neighborhood. This is exactly what the
Comprehensive Plan was designed to prevent. The requirements set in the Comprehensive Plan must be upheld
without variance, that should be the precedent that is set with denial of this replat request.
There are additional concerns such as the problems with the older sewer system and the traffic problem on
Lincoln and how adding driveway access on that street will make it more difficult. Plus if developers are
allowed to start adding driveway access to Lincoln on that side of the street in one area then what happens to
traffic as developers want to continue building along that side of Lincoln and adding more driveway access?
Following the requirements established in the Comprehensive Plan will prevent these future problems, another
purpose of designing the Comprehensive Plan in the first place.
I encourage anyone who is not familiar with the area to drive down Lincoln and through our neighborhood to
get a visual feel for the area in question. Houses do not remain for sale very long in this area because it is a
1
highly desirable location. You might notice the house on Walton which needed a lot of work and is nearing the
end of a complete remodel by the family who bought it. There is a lot of potential for the 900 Ashburn property
following the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Della Stephenson
1005 Ashburn
z
Morgan Hester
To: Sherry Frisk
Subject: RE: 900 & 900A Ashburn Replat
From: Sherry Frisk
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 7:27 PM
To: Droleskey, Suzanne M
Cc: Morgan Hester
Subject: Re: 900 &900A Ashburn Replat
Morgan,
My family has owned the property at 1004 Ashburn Avenue (corner of Francis & Ashburn) for over 73
years. Our home was moved off of the A&M campus in 1941 by my parents, Manning & Nita Smith.
After their passing, my husband & I chose to retire here because of the history of the house, the open
feeling of the larger lots and because of the unique quality of the neighborhood and the people who
live here.
The link you provided states, in part:
"The Eastgate Neighborhood Plan was adopted by City Council on June 23, 2011. The plan
addresses issues relating to community character and land use, neighborhood integrity, mobility and
sustainability. The following are the goals for the four content chapters:
1. Community Character:
• Maintain a diverse mix of housing types;
• Preserve larger lot single-family development patterns;
• Reduce character impact of rental housing in the neighborhood; and
• Promote redevelopment around the perimeter of the neighborhood that meets
community needs and is complimentary to the neighborhood."
What I'd like to ask is this - what is the purpose of a Neighborhood Plan, arrived at through a lot of
work & then adopted by an elected City Council, if a Planning & Zoning commission can later negate
the most important elements of the plan - those with the most impact and far-reaching implications for
the current residents of that neighborhood?
Della Stephenson has stated very well our concerns about the proposed replat and rezone of 900 &
900A Ashburn Avenue. My husband and I join the Stephensons and our other neighbors in
respectfully but emphatically voting, "No!" to the waivers requested.
1
Thank you for your time. See you on March 6th!
Larry & Sherry Frisk
2
Morgan Hester
To: Kathryn James
Subject: RE: 900 & 900A Ashburn Replat
From: Kathryn James
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 3:32 PM
To: Dave Hill; Sherry Frisk; Droleskey, Suzanne M
Cc: Morgan Hester
Subject: Re: 900 &900A Ashburn Replat
Please deny the replat request of 900 and 900A Ashburn. We lived on Ashburn from 1971-74 and
built on 1014 Rose Circle in 1974 because of the neighborhood appeal. I agree with the comments of
Leslie Miller that the integrity of the neighborhood is being compromised. It is just the beginning for
developers to come in and buy and build for profit. I would like to add that the neighborhood is
supposed to be single-family dwellings; however, Rose Circle now has 6 homes that are inhabited by
students - yards not kept; large vehicles parked in the street, etc. One dwelling was built on the last
vacant lot by a developer for income purposes - one front door and two bedrooms and bath on each
side of entry so students are leasing. How do we stop this from happening? Our street is lined with
pickups and it is difficult to pass through in the evenings - not appealing anymore. Help. Sincerely,
Kathryn June James
i
Morgan Hester
To: Sharon Colson
Subject: RE: 900 & 900A Ashburn Replat
From: Sharon Colson
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 4:16 PM
To: Kathryn James; Dave Hill; Sherry Frisk; Droleskey, Suzanne M; Irma Smith; Iris Cote
Cc: Morgan Hester
Subject: Re: 900 &900A Ashburn Replat
We so agree with and appreciate the perspectives presented by each
respondent to date. Sadly, this isn't the first neighborhood being
compromised and won't be the last. There was a time when the city
manager, the city council, the members of P & Z, et.al., were all about the
integrity of the city. They valued the long history of residence, paying
taxes, supporting each other as we put down roots and began to grow
developmentally. The individual homeowner was respected.
North Bardell was City Manager when we came here in 1974 and lived
across the street from us on Neal Pickett. Both Lynn and I became involved
on various city committees and the focus was always on what was best for
the individual homeowner who had made an investment, not only in
property, but their very lives by choosing to live in his community. Sadly,
that is no longer true. As an example, recently, I met several times with
different city representatives about a neighborhood concern. I was literally
told by one group that, while that might be a concern, there was nothing in
it for the city! That is a true story.
And, not to say that we don't understand the business perspective. We
have been in the rental property business for many years, so we have
"worked both sides of the street." We own a wonderful house on Kyle St.
and both the Kyle property and the Neal Pickett residence have those
incredible large lots. Since the city does not enforce deed restrictions, we
now have one of those two story dormitories (masquerading as a single
family home) in the next block down the street. Code enforcement doesn't
need to sit in the office waiting for the phone to ring with a report of a
violation.. ..just drive up and down any residential street between Texas
Ave. and the bypass between University Drive and Harvey Rd., any day,
and they can fill up a ticketbook quickly! And, it is caused by the people
who live on the property, not the property owner. That is who needs to get
the ticket.
This is a long way of saying to please deny the replat request of 900 and
900A Ashburn.
Sharon Colson
1116 Neal Pickett St.
College Station, TX 77840
979-696-6050
z
Morgan Hester
To: Ruth Whiteley
Subject: RE: 900 & 900A Ashburn Replat Questions
From: Ruth Whiteley
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 11:49 AM
To: Morgan Hester
Subject: Re: 900 &900A Ashburn Replat Questions
Morgan,
Thank you for keeping us informed!
Please let it be known that I am opposed to any waiver for the property at 900 and 900A Ashburn
street.
My parents, Eli and Anna Morris Whiteley moved into our house in 1956. I grew up in this large
neighborhood and now reside there.
I pay my taxes and keep my residence well-maintained in an effort to keep the integrity of our
neighborhood.
I expect the city officials to do their part and listen to those of us who are opposed to the requested
waiver.
I do believe that a waiver would set a precedent for future divisions of our large lots.
Therefore it is my opinion that the property at 900 and 900A Ashburn should remain as a single
dwelling property site.
Respectfully submitted-March 3, 2014
Ruth Whiteley
Children First, Always... The Bryan Way
Ruth Whiteley
Teacher/Social Studies Department
Bryan High School
ruth.whiteleygbryanisd.org
i
Morgan Hester
To: Peter Hugill
Subject: RE: 900 & 900A Ashburn Replat Questions
From: Peter Hugill
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 8:42 AM
To: Morgan Hester
Subject: Re: 900 &900A Ashburn Replat Questions
Dear Morgan
Please include Judy and I as in opposition to this replat. We own the home at 904 Francis, which is on an acre
of land. To some this would make it worth a lot for "development." But "development" tends to benefit only the
"developer" and rarely the current residents,whose quality of life in this neighborhood is being steadily eroded
by the proliferation of mini apartment blocks, every one of which seems to generate 4 (or more)pick-up trucks,
lots of litter, and too much noise. When "developers" build these they seem to lack any concern for the local
residents, paving over front yards to allow an almost always ugly collection of vehicles to dominate the
landscape (why not put such parking lots at the rear where they wouldn't be quite so unsightly?) To describe
these as single family homes, as the political establishment of this city is willing to, beggars belief, and if this
replat goes ahead we will almost certainly end up with at least two more of the things--I say at least since its
pretty obvious that the small and currently illegal house (which who allowed by the by?) could easily be
profitably replaced by another four bedroom apartment house once it becomes "legal."
Sincerely
Peter
Peter Hugill,Ph.D.
Professor,Department of Geography
Fellow,Scowcroft Institute,Bush School
Texas A&M University
Past President,T.A.C.T.
Past President,
Texas Conference AAUP
1
Morgan Hester
To: Rgutierrezmd@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: 900 & 900A Ashburn Replat Questions
From: RgutierrezmdCd)vahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:27 PM
To: Peter Hugill
Cc: Morgan Hester
Subject: Re: 900 &900A Ashburn Replat Questions
Morgan,
Please accept this as our vote AGAINST the proposed replat of 900 and 901 Ashburn. My wife and I are
currently in the process of designing our house for our lot on Ashburn (I 100 ashburn) and this is cause for great
concern. We don't want this to set a precedence for others to purchase large lots and cut them up into smaller
lots for the benefit rental property. We bought a lot in this area knowing the neighborhood stressed
conservation. We would like to know the city will protect the homeowners and the rules that are already in
place to protect the neighborhood. Will money and politics take the place of the rules already in place for the
homeowners? I truly hope the City will stand with us on this issue and preserve the lots and preserve the
neighborhood.
Thank you so much Morgan for keeping us well informed.
Sent from my iPhone
R Gutierrez,MD
i
Morgan Hester
To: Suzanne Droleskey
Subject: RE: replat for 900 and 900A Ashburn
From: Suzanne Droleskey
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:10 PM
To: Morgan Hester
Subject: replat for 900 and 900A Ashburn
Planning and Zoning Commission,
We are opposed to the proposed replat of 900 and 900A Ashburn and request the Planning and Zoning
Commission deny this request owing to its neglect for the standards of the neighborhood outlined by the
Comprehensive Plan created in 2011. We believe strongly that the Comprehensive Plan is an agreement made
by the city with the neighborhood, and that this agreement is the foundation upon which we and many of our
neighbors continue to invest in and maintain our property.
Since the Comprehensive Plan for our neighborhood is fairly recent, it is possible that there may be insufficient
understanding of it by those seeking to make changes to it. However, this plan, crafted after detailed and
lengthy conversations between neighborhood residents and city officials, was designed to preserve unique
characteristics of our existing neighborhood.
Dividing the property into smaller lots not only sets a precedent for it to happen again to other large lots, it
also establishes forever a smaller lot minimum for the entire street. Although the neighborhood was originally
platted in the late 1930s as noted in your briefing materials prepared by city staff, today's lot sizes reflect both
original landowners who purchased large land parcels and some that were enlarged as property owners
acquired adjoining lots. Regardless of when and how this occurred, referencing 1938 platting concepts as a
rationale for 2014 subdivisions is simply not relevant. This is because the neighborhood and the city
established an agreement in the form of the 2011 Comprehensive Plan to protect the character of the
neighborhood as it exists today. The large lot sizes are a primary feature of the neighborhood's character.
In another segment of the briefing materials you received, it mentions "special circumstances 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". What is most striking to us in considering this element is that the landowner said
in a public meeting that he was not aware of the Comprehensive Plan's restrictions in subdividing the lots
when he purchased this property, despite the fact that the property was purchased well after the
Comprehensive Plan was established. While it is unfortunate that the landowner's investigations into the
property were not sufficient to identify the city's endorsement of criteria that protect our neighborhood's lot
sizes, it is unreasonable for the landowner to expect the Planning and Zoning Committee to approve a replat
that disregards the Comprehensive Plan. Doing so renders the Comprehensive Plan powerless.
Several months ago, the question of replatting was raised in relation to a different type of development at this
same property. We indicated then that we are about to tear down our current home at 1109 Ashburn and
build a new home for ourselves on our existing lot. That project is proceeding and is based on the idea that
the Comprehensive Plan may be relied upon to make this investment a sound one. Furthermore, our new
home has been planned with attention to maintaining the historic character of our neighborhood in alignment
1
with the Comprehensive Plan. We expect the same from others who plan new construction in our
neighborhood.
Finally, if the Planning and Zoning Committee decides to override the compact created between the
neighborhood and the city in the form of the Comprehensive Plan, the Committee will not only irrevocably
change the character of the neighborhood that the Comprehensive Plan was designed to protect, it will send a
clear message to the residents of College Station that a promise made by the city to its residents about
neighborhood integrity is meaningless.
Thank you for your consideration.
Bob and Suzanne Droleskey
1109 Ashburn Ave.
2
Morgan Hester
To: Chen, Jenny
Subject: RE: neighborhood issue
From: Chen, Jenny
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:27 AM
To: Morgan Hester
Subject: neighborhood issue
Dear Ms. Hester,
We are residents of College Station for more than twenty years, and we are not in favor of the request to replat 900
and 900A Ashburn Avenue since it violates the neighborhood's comprehensive plan. Although we do not live in that
neighborhood,we are concerned about what may happen to our own neighborhood in the future, because if the P&Z
can disregard one neighborhood's decisions, it sets a precedent to do it for all neighborhoods.
Please let us know if you have any questions about our appeal.
Thank you very much!
Best regards,
Jenny Chen and Liqun Liu
3237 Innsbruck Circle
College Station,TX 77845
1
Morgan Hester
To: Mary Wells
Subject: RE: Replat hearing concerning 900 and 900A Ashburn Ave.
From: Mary Wells
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 10:38 AM
To: Morgan Hester
Subject: Replat hearing concerning 900 and 900A Ashburn Ave.
Dear Morgan,
Thank you so much for collecting the written concerns of the Eastgate Neighborhood regarding the property at
the corner of Ashburn and Lincoln and for passing our concerns on to the members of the Planning and Zoning
Committee.
There is a wonderfully successful example of a new home that blends in beautifully
with the neighborhood right across the street from 900 and 900A Ashburn. The house
and grounds at 901 Ashburn are a welcome enhancement of the neighborhood and
can serve as a wonderful guide to building on the two lots in question.
We urge the current owners of the property at the corner of Lincoln and Ashburn to
develop the two lots as true single-family dwellings and sell them to families, or to sell
the lots to families who will develop the land as their homes. We welcome into our
neighborhood all who appreciate its special and beautiful character of spacious lots,
wooded areas, and lovingly maintained properties.
The Eastgate Neighborhood Plan, approved by the College Station City Council in
2011 , recognizes, and stipulates the preservation of, the special character of the
Eastgate section of College Station. Along with our neighbors, we urge the current
owners of 900 and 900A Ashburn to develop their property in a way that harmonizes
with the Eastgate Neighborhood Plan and the neighborhood. The properties are
exceptional and offer great promise as beautiful homesites.
Respectfully yours,
Gregg and Mary Wells
1106 Ashburn Avenue
Morgan Hester
To: Boyd, Kriss Hope
Subject: RE: 900 & 900A Ashburn Replat Questions
From: Boyd, Kriss Hope
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:29 PM
To: Morgan Hester
Subject: RE: 900 &900A Ashburn Replat Questions
I will like to write to confirm that Dean and I officially oppose the replat of any lots in our neighborhood. The request
does not represent the Comprehensive Plan or the Eastgate Neighborhood Plan call for in this area. The Eastgate Plan,
adopted in June 2011, describes the area residents' desire to maintain the character of the neighborhood—large lot
single-family residential. Additionally, the Plan suggests the potential for standards within the neighborhood. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Neighborhood Conservation.
Dozens of current residents of this section of College Hills, many who have made continuous investments in their homes
and have lived here for many years, are good neighbors and citizens because they value the unique climate of the
neighborhood. Just as College Station has seen the value in providing great services and good facilities such as parks,
College Station also should value and preserve the unique climate of the older sections of family neighborhoods.
I strongly believe that if this replat is approved, it will be used as a precedent in the future for other similar requests
that, if approved, will ultimately destroy the character of our section of the neighborhood. The interests, investments
and values of dozens of residents should not be overridden by the interests of a single builder/developer.
Kriss Hope Boyd, Ph. D. and Dean L. Boyd, Ph.D.
1202 Ashburn residents since 1988
i
Morgan Hester
To: morsted@st-joseph.org
Subject: RE: 900 Ashburn Replat Project Number 14-00900006
From: morstedCd)st-iose0.ora
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 9:02 AM
To: Morgan Hester
Subject: FW: 900 Ashburn Replat Project Number 14-00900006
Importance: High
Good morning! ... I apologize for the late response.
As an owner of property within 200' of the proposed changes (729 Lincoln), I would like to make sure my objection to
the proposed changes is included in the Planning&Zoning meeting records. Could you help with that?
My specific objections to the proposal (which I understand to be an effort to subdivide the property into 4 lots) arise
from concerns regarding the potential "impact"to neighborhood and community:
• The established neighborhood is lower density than what is being proposed. "My" side of Lincoln provides a
buffer zone of increasing residential density, and the open land/lots on "my
side of Lincoln would be a perfectly reasonable site for smaller lots and/or multi-family housing. To encroach on
the established neighborhood on the "other" side of Lincoln (the Ashburn side) by amending lot sizes to allow
for more "dense" housing than was contemplated in the original platting/development seems terribly
destructive to the neighborhood concept, and violates the intentional "buffer"to the neighborhood that Lincoln
and the townhouses on "my" side provide.
• The city and the property owners on "my" side of Lincoln have worked to make Lincoln a "safe" major
feed/alternate to University Drive, giving up our "on street" parking, allowing sidewalk improvements that
destroyed/endangered trees etc. Providing"single access"to multiple residences does NOT decrease the total
number of additional vehicles that will enter and exit the heavy traffic flow on Lincoln—potentially negating the
work and safety efforts that have been made.
• Ashburn is the site of a unique community resource,TAMU's Dr. David Schob Nature Preserve. To increase
housing density from the planned/platted sites so close to a dedicated Nature Preserve seems counter-intuitive.
This area is not a park, it is not a playground, it is a nature preserve. I've enclosed pictures indicating how close
any intended multi-family/higher density housing would be to this neighborhood asset.
My last issue of concern is the possibility that practices related to the posting/public notice of the change might not
have been complied with. I'm also enclosing a photo of the city sign posted on the property site—in the "position" I saw
it for most of the week preceding the hearing. I am uncertain if it was intentionally pulled up after a required display
period, but clearly it has not been visible to vehicle traffic during the last week.
Again, my apologies for the lateness of my response—if you need additional information, I can be contacted today by
cell (979-255-9604).
Mary Orsted
Property Owner—729 Lincoln
Cell: 979-255-9604
1
The documents accompanying this transmission may contain confidential health information that is legally privileged.This information is intended only for the use
of the individual or entity named on this sheet.The authorized recipient of this information is prohibited from disclosing this information to any party unless required
to do so by law or regulation and is required to destroy the information after its stated need has been fulfilled.
If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution,or action taken in reliance on the contents of these
documents is strictly prohibited.Violators will be prosecuted. If you have received this information in error,please notify the sender immediately and arrange for the
destruction of these documents.
2
(*Arqi44
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
FINAL PLAT
for
FS Kapchinski Lots 12R1-12R3, Block 2
Being a Replat of
FS Kapchinski Lot 12, Block 2
14-00900023
SCALE: Three lots on approximately one acre
LOCATION: 1635 Park Place, generally located west of Systek Computing
ZONING: GS General Suburban
APPLICANT: Rabon Metcalf, RME Consulting Engineers
PROJECT MANAGER: Jason Schubert, AICP, Principal Planner
jschubert@cstx.gov
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat.
Planning &Zoning Commission Page 1 of 3
March 6, 2014
q
� z
W
P
CIA
Fie. S' M
u CO
CN
wl Ui W
Ok
t
o '•
a
W
W
�. 4p
W
IL
LU
- W
�J
Planning &Zoning Commission Page 2 of 3
March 6, 2014
DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
Annexation: 1956
Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential renamed GS General Suburban
(2013)
Preliminary Plat: N/A
Site Development: A single-family residential structure is located on the existing lot.
COMMENTS
Parkland Dedication: Neighborhood and Community Parkland dedication fees of$2,522
(2 lots x $1,261)
Greenways: N/A
Pedestrian Connectivity: A 5-foot sidewalk is proposed along Park Place.
Bicycle Connectivity: A bike route is planned along Park Place.
Impact Fees: N/A
REVIEW CRITERIA
Compliance with Subdivision Regulations: The Final Plat is in compliance with the
Subdivision Requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat.
SUPPORTING MATERIALS
1. Application
2. Copy of Final Plat
Planning &Zoning Commission Page 3 of 3
March 6, 2014
—FOR OFFIC E NL
CASE NO.:
�..
DATE S1181u11TTED-
TIME:
CI' Yor— CO,(_LEG.ESTATION
Home of7i=AeSM University' STAFF:
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
(Check one) ❑ Minor ❑ Amending ❑ Final ❑ vacating ❑X Replat
a ($700) ($700) ($932) ($932) ($932)
i
Is this platin the ETJ? ❑ Yes ❑X No Is this plat Commercial ❑ or Residential X❑
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
�g $700-$932 Final Plat Application Fee(see above).
❑ $233 Waiver Request to.Subdivision Regulations Fee(if applicable).
'$600 (minimum) Development Permit Application / Public Infrastructure Review and Inspection Fee. Fee is
1% of acceptable Engineer's Estimate for public infrastructure, $600 minimum (if fee is> $600, the balance is
,et'ue prior to the Issuance of any plans or development permit).
Ix Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and
nay not be adjusted or altered. Please attach pages if additional information is provided.
Fourteen (14)folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after approval.)
❑ Ao(2) copies of the grading,drainage, and erosion control plans with supporting drainage report.
7wq(2) copies of the Public infrastructure plans and supporting documents(if applicable).
❑1 apy of original deec restrictions/covenants for replats(if applicable).
` Title report for property current within ninety (90) days or accompanied by a Nothing Further Certificate
current within ninety (90) mays. The report must include applicable information such as ownership, liens,
n umtlrances, etc.
.� ?rd tax
certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station I.S.D.
The attached Final Plat checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
NOTE: A mylar of the approved preliminary plan must be on file before a final plat application will be considered
complete. If the mylar is submitted with the final plat application, it shall be considered a submittal for the
preliminary plan project and processed and reviewed as such. Until the mylar has been confirmed by staff
to be correct, the final plat application will be considered incomplete.
Date of Optional Preapplication or Stormwater Management Conference N/A
NAME OF PROJECT 1635 Park Place
ADDRESS 1635 Park Place
SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLAT:
Lot 12, Block 2-FS Kapchinski Subdivision
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project):
Name RME Consulting Engineers E-mail rabon@rmengineer.com
`street Address PO Box 9253
Cit�' C�lege Station State TX zip Code 77842
Phone Number (979) 764-0704 Fax Number (979) 764-0704
1/11 Page 1 of
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (All owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple
owners):
Name DH Properties, LLC E-mail ghudson@xpedientmail.com
Street Address 2020 Oakwood Trail
City College Station State TX _ Zip Code 77845
Phone Number (979) 218-1858 Fax Number
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
Name 'Same.As Applicant E-mail
Street Address
City State Zip Code
Phone Number Fax Number
Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? ❑ Yes 0 No
Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume and Page No.
Total Acreage 0.617 Total No. of Lots 3 _ R-O-W Acreage 0.0
Existing 'jse Residential Proposed Use Residential
Number of Lots By Zoning District 3 / SF
Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
0.206 / SF
Floodplain Acreage 0.0
Is there Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A or Zone AE on FEMA FIRM panels) on the property? F Yes Q No
This information is necessary to help staff identify the appropriate standards to review the appficatlon and will be used to
help determine if the application qualifies for-vesting to a previous ordinance. Notwithstanding any assertion made,
vesting is limited to that which is provided in Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code or other applicable law
Is this application a continuation of a project that has received prior City platting approval(s) and.you are requesting the
application be reviewed under previous ordinance as applicable?
r Yes
a No
if yes, provide information regarding the first approved application and any related subsequent applications(provide
additions' sheets if necessary)-
Project Name:
City Project Number(if known):
Date/Timeframe when submitted:
I
��� Page 2 of 9
A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and Preliminary Plan (if applicable):
NN Applicable
Requested waiver to subdivision regulations and reason for same if applicable):
Not Applicable
Regarding the waiver request, explain how:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the
subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
Not Appfic able
2. The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.
"Jof Applicable
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 subdivision regulations.
Not Applicable
�J
4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in
accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance.
Fr)IApp/icab/e
1. --
Fee in lieu of sidewalk construction is being requested because of the following condition (if applicable):
1. J` A n alternative pedestrian way or multi-use path has been or will be provided outside the right-of-way;
Z. r The presence of unique or unusual topographic, vegetative, or other natural conditions exist so that strict
adherence to the sidewalk requirements of the UDO is not physically feasible or is not in keeping with the
purposes and goals of the UDO or the City's comprehensive Plan;
3. F H capital improvement project is imminent that will include construction of the required sidewalk. Imminent shall
mean the project is funded or projected to commence within twelve (12) months;
4. F- Existing streets constructed to rural section that are not identified on the Thoroughfare Plan with an estate/
rural context;
5. r When a sidewalk is required along a street where a multi-use path is shown on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Master Plan;
1/11 Page 3 of 9
6. r The proposed development is within an older residential subdivision meeting the criteria in Platting and
Replatting within Older Residential Subdivisions Section of the UDO; or
7. r The proposed development contains frontage on a Freeway I Expressway as designated by Map 6.6,
Thoroughfare Plan- Functional Classification, in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Detailed explanation of condition identified above:
Not Applicable
NOTE: A waiver to the sidewalk requirements and fee in lieu of sidewalk construction shall not be considered at the
same time by the Planning &Zoning Commission.
Requested Oversize ParticipationNot Applicable
Total Linear Footage of Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat:
Proposed Public:
ACREAGE:
Streets
273 Sidewalks No. of acres to be dedicated + $ development fee
Sanitary Sewer Lines No. of acres in floodplain
No. of acres in detention
Water Lines
Channels No. of acres in greenways
OR
Storm Sewers
Bike Lanes/Paths FEE IN LIEU OF LAND:
No. of SF Dwelling Units X$ $
(date)Approved by Parks& Recreation Advisory 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. IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is more
than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the application
must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. LIEN
HOLDERS identified in the title report are also considered owners and the appropriate signatures must be provided as
described above.
Signature and 4itle Date
1/11 Page 4 of 9
Nil
! oma cep
/05
rn &PET MIAMUO-0101 01141'Bib!1
's
ss�
oll vt
Ea