HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/04/2021 - Agenda Packet - Planning & Zoning Commission (2)College Station, TX
Meeting Agenda
Planning and Zoning Commission
1101 Texas Ave, College Station, TX 77840
Internet: https://zoom.us/j/81669307095
*Phone: 888 475 4499 and Meeting ID: 816 6930 7095
The City Council may or may not attend the Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting.
November 4, 2021 6:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers
College Station, TX Page 1
This meeting will offer both in-person and remote participation following both the City’s
Guidelines for in-person, virtual attendance, and the speaker protocol in the agenda. The city
uses a third-party vendor to help host the meeting and if the call-in number is not functioning
access will be through the internet link only.
1.Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Consider Absence Request.
2.Hear Visitors.
At this time, the Chairperson will open the floor to visitors wishing to address the Commission on issues
not already scheduled on tonight's agenda. An individual who wishes to address the Commission
regarding any item on the agenda shall register with the Commission Secretary prior to 4 p.m. on the
day of the meeting. To register, the individual must provide a name and phone number by calling
979.764.3751 or emailing khejny@cstx.gov prior to 4 p.m. To submit written comments to the
Commission, email khejny@cstx.gov and they will be distributed to the Commission. The visitor
presentations will be limited to three minutes in order to accommodate everyone who wishes to address
the Commission and to allow adequate time for completion of the agenda items. The Commission will
receive the information, ask city staff to look into the matter, or will place the matter on a future agenda
for discussion. (A recording is made of the meeting; please give your name and address for the record.)
3.Informational
3.1.Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City.
New Development Link: www.cstx.gov/newdev
3.2.Discussion of Minor / Amending Plats approved by staff:
Carter Lake Subdivision: Section 4, Block 10, Lots 9R & 10R; and Section 5, Block 10, Lot
12R ~ Case #FP2020-000046
Midtown Reserve Subdivision: Phase 201, Block 23, Lot 23A & Common Area 26A ~ Case
#FP2021-000022
Sponsors:Robin Macias, Derrick Williams
3.3.Presentation and discussion regarding an update on items heard:
A Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Suburban Commercial to Urban on
approximately 10 acres located at 1660 Graham Road. The Planning & Zoning
Commission heard this item on August 19, 2021 and voted (5-0) to recommend approval.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 2 November 4, 2021
The City Council heard this item on October 28, 2021 and voted (4-3) to approve the
request.
A Rezoning from R Rural to PDD Planned Development District on approximately 10 acres
located at 1660 Graham Road. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on
August 19, 2021 and voted (5-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item
on October 28, 2021 and voted (6-1) to deny the request.
A Rezoning from GS General Suburban and C-3 Light Industrial to PDD Planned
Development District on approximately 0.6 acres located at 1201 Wellborn Road. The
Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on October 7, 2021 and voted (4-0) to
recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on October 28, 2021 and voted (7-
0) to approve the request.
A Rezoning from R Rural to GS General Suburban on approximately 30 acres generally
located west of the intersection of W.S. Phillips Parkway and Brewster Drive. The Planning
& Zoning Commission heard this item on October 7, 2021 and voted (4-0) to recommend
approval. The City Council heard this item on October 28, 2021 and voted (7-0) to approve
the request.
A Rezoning from PDD Planned Development District to PDD Planned Development
District on approximately 13 acres generally located at the corner of Midtown Drive and
the State Highway 6 Frontage Road. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item
on October 21, 2021 and voted (5-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard
this item on October 28, 2021 and voted (7-0) to approve the request.
An Ordinance amending Appendix A, "Unified Development Ordinance," Article 8,
"Subdivision Design and Improvements," Section 8.8, "Requirements for Park Land
Dedication," including amending the official Park Zones Map. The Planning & Zoning
Commission heard this item on October 21, 2021 and voted (6-0) to recommend approval.
The City Council heard this item on October 28, 2021 and directed staff to make further
amendments to the ordinance.
3.4.Presentation and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings:
Thursday, November 11, 2021 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Open
Meeting 5:00 p.m.
Thursday, November 18, 2021 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ 6:00 p.m.
Thursday, December 2, 2021 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ 6:00 p.m.
3.5.Discussion and review regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, BioCorridor
Board.
4.Consent Agenda
All matters listed under the Consent Agenda, are considered routine by the Commission and will be
enacted by one motion. These items include preliminary plans and final plats, where staff has found
compliance with all minimum subdivision regulations. All items approved by Consent are approved with
any and all staff recommendations. Since there will not be separate discussion of these items, citizens
wishing to address the Commission regarding one or more items on the Consent Agenda may address
the Commission at this time as well. If any Commissioner desires to discuss an item on the Consent
Agenda it may be moved to the Regular Agenda for further consideration.
Monday, November 22, 2021 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Open
Meeting 5:00 p.m. (Liaison - Wright)
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 3 November 4, 2021
4.1.Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes.
Attachments:1.October 21 2021
4.2.Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a Final Plat for Ascend at Harvey on
approximately 11.94 acres, generally located north of the intersection of Summit Crossing Lane
and Harvey Road. Case #FP2021-000001
Sponsors:Anthony Armstrong
Attachments:1.Staff Report
2.Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map
3.Final Plat
4.3.Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a Final Plat for Williams Creek Lake
Estates Phase 4 on approximately 15.86 acres, generally located north of the intersection of
William D Fitch Parkway and Rock Prairie Road. Case #FP2021-000013
Sponsors:Brandi Tedrick
Attachments:1.Staff Report
2.Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map
3.Final Plat
4.4.Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a Final Plat for The Creek Place on
approximately 14 acres, generally located northeast of the intersection of Texas Avenue and
Harvey Mitchell Parkway. Case #FPCO2021-000014
Sponsors:Jesse Dimeolo
Attachments:1.Staff Report
2.Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map
3.Final Plat
4.5.Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a Final Plat for Greens Prairie Reserve
Section 3, Phase 301, generally located northwest of the intersection of Diamondback Drive and
Arrington Road. Case #FP2021-000003
Sponsors:Erika Bridges
Attachments:1.Staff Report
2.Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map
3.Final Plat
5.Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent
Agenda by Commission action.
6.Regular Agenda
6.1.Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a waiver request to the Unified
Development Ordinance Section 8.3.G, 'Blocks' regarding block length requirements in Rural
Context Zones and presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a Preliminary Plan
for Williams Creek Reserve on approximately 57 acres, generally located on Rock Prairie Rd east
of Williams Creek Subdivision. Case #PP2021-000003
Sponsors:Robin Macias
Attachments:1.Staff Report
2.Waiver Request
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 4 November 4, 2021
3.Applicant's Supporting Information
4.Vicinity Map and Aerial
5.Preliminary Plan
6.2.Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending
Appendix A, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 3.2, "General Approval Procedures," and
Section 3.22, "Comprehensive Plan Amendment," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
College Station, regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Processes and Notifications.
Case #ORDA2021-000005 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the November 22,
2021 City Council meeting - subject to change.)Sponsors:Amy Albright
Attachments:1.Staff Memo
2.Sec. 3.2 General Approval Procedures Redline
3.Sec. 3.22 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Redline
7.Discussion and possible action on future agenda items.
A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A
statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any
deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
8.Adjourn.
The Planning and Zoning Commission may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed
on the agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion.
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the website and at College Station City Hall,
1101 Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on November 1, 2021 at 5:00 p.m.
City Secretary
This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting
and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as interpreters,
readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary’s Office at (979) 764-3541, TDD
at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business days prior to the
meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does not receive notification
at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a reasonable attempt to
provide the necessary accommodations.
Penal Code § 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun.
"Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly
Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a
Handgun that is Carried Openly."
Codigo Penal § 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia.
“Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano al aire
libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo 411,
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 5 November 4, 2021
Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta propiedad
portando arma de mano al aire libre.”
October 21, 2021 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
October 21, 2021 6:00 p.m.
Phone: *888 475 4499 and Webinar ID: 817 6275 3383
Internet: https://zoom.us/j/81762753383
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dennis Christiansen, Bill Mather, Bobby Mirza, Jason Cornelius,
Jeremy Osborne and William Wright
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Michael Ostrowski, Molly Hitchcock, Carol Cotter, Jason Schubert, Anthony
Armstrong, Jesse DiMeolo, Elizabeth Pedersen, Parker Mathews, Stephen Wright, Carla Robinson, and
Kristen Hejny
1. Call Meeting to Order, Pledge of Allegiance, Consider Absence Request.
Chairman Christiansen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
2. Hear Visitors
No visitors spoke.
3. Informational Agenda
3.1 Discussion of new development applications submitted to the City
New Development Link: www.cstx.gov/newdev
There was no discussion.
3.2 Presentation and discussion regarding an update on items heard:
• A Comprehensive Plan 10-Year Update updating the City of College Station
Comprehensive Plan, and all associated map updates within the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Greenways Master Plan, the Water System Master Plan, and the Wastewater System
Master Plan. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on September 16, 2021
and voted (6-0) to recommend approval. The City Council heard this item on October 14,
2021 and voted (7-0) to approve the request.
There was no discussion.
3.3 Presentation and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming Meetings:
• Thursday, October 28, 2021 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Open Meeting
5:00 p.m. (Liaison – Cornelius)
• Thursday, November 4, 2021 ~ P&Z/IFAC Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ 6:00 p.m.
• Thursday, November 11, 2021 ~ City Council Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ Open
Meeting 5:00 p.m.
• Thursday, November 18, 2021 ~ P&Z Meeting ~ Council Chambers ~ 6:00 p.m.
Page 6 of 55
October 21, 2021 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5
There was no discussion.
3.4 Discussion and review regarding the following meetings: Design Review Board, BioCorridor
Board.
There was no discussion.
Consent Agenda
4.1 Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting minutes.
• October 7, 2021
4.2 Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a Final Plat for Pershing Pointe Subdivision
on approximately 5 acres, generally located between Holleman Drive South and Towers Parkway,
south of Deacon West Drive. Case #FP2021-000024
4.3 Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a Final Plat for The Creek Place on
approximately 14 acres, generally located northeast of the intersection of Texas Avenue and Harvey
Mitchell Parkway. Case #FP2021-000014
Consent Agenda Item #4.3 was pulled from the October 21, 2021 Planning & Zoning Commission
Agenda and was not heard.
Consent Agenda Item #4.2 was pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
Commissioner Osborne motioned to approve Consent Agenda Item #4.1. Commissioner
Mirza seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0).
5. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent Agenda
by Commission Action.
Consent Agenda #4.2 was pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
Commissioner Mather asked if this development is the extension of the current Barracks
Subdivision.
Staff Planner DiMeolo clarified that this is not an extension of the existing subdivision.
Commissioner Mather asked for the lot size of the development.
Staff Planner DiMeolo clarified that the lots are 28 feet wide and 112 feet deep.
Commissioner Osborne motioned to approve Consent Agenda Item #4.2. Commissioner
Wright seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0).
Page 7 of 55
October 21, 2021 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5
6. Regular Agenda
6.1 Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending
Appendix A, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Article 4, “Zoning Districts,” Section 4.2
“Official Zoning Map,” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas by
changing the zoning district boundaries from PDD Planned Development District to PDD Planned
Development District on approximately 13 acres for the property located at 4003 State Highway 6
South, generally located at the corner of Midtown Drive and the State Highway 6 Frontage Road.
Case #REZ2021-000009. (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the October 28,
2021 City Council Meeting – subject to change).
Staff Planner DiMeolo presented the Rezoning to the Commission and recommended approval.
Chairman Christiansen opened the public hearing.
No visitors spoke.
Chairman Christiansen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Mather motioned to recommend approval of the Rezoning. Commissioner
Osborne seconded the motion, motion passed (5-0).
6.2 Public Hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending
Appendix A, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Article 8, “Subdivision Design and
Improvements,” Section 8.8, “Requirements for Park Land Dedication,” of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of College Station, Texas in its entirety, including amending the official Park Zones
Map. Case #ORDA2021-000004 (Note: Final action on this item is scheduled for the October 28,
2021 City Council meeting – subject to change)
Director of Planning & Development Services Ostrowski presented the Ordinance Amendment to
the Commission and recommended approval.
Commissioner Cornelius arrived at 6:15 p.m.
Chairman Christiansen asked how long it has been since there was an adjustment to parkland
fees.
Director of Planning & Development Services Ostrowski confirmed that the fees have not been
adjusted since 2012.
Commissioner Mather expressed support of zones and calculations and requested information on
how funds from existing zones will be reconciled to new zones.
Director of Planning & Development Services Ostrowski stated that the City hopes to spend current
funds within the existing zones before the ordinance takes effect, then the City will reallocate
remaining funds.
Commissioner Mather asked about the spending time frame for funds and whether the time frame
will reset or carry over to the new zones.
Page 8 of 55
October 21, 2021 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5
Director of Planning & Development Services Ostrowski explained that the time frame will carry
over.
Commissioner Mather stated that incentives need to be higher to account for existing development
agreements. Mr. Mather also spoke about the regressive nature of parkland dedication fees, and the
desire to evaluate them regarding housing affordability.
Chairman Christiansen asked if there was a way to exclude lower income developments from
impact fees.
Director of Planning & Development Services Ostrowski stated that there are ways to do that with
affordable housing.
Director of Planning & Development Services Ostrowski stated that existing agreements will stay.
Commissioner Osborne stated that the credit seems like a disincentive for developers and asked if
there is any mechanism to try and develop near developer’s zones.
Director of Planning & Development Services Ostrowski stated that the intent is to try to disperse
funds before this ordinance goes into effect. Mr. Ostrowski also stated that staff can consider using
funds in the same zone where the parkland funds originated from.
Commissioner Mirza asked how parks are being policed to make sure private parks are not used by
others.
Director of Planning & Development Services Ostrowski stated that private parks are to be
controlled by homeowners associations (HOA).
Chairman Christiansen opened the public hearing.
Director of Parks & Recreation Wright stated that this ordinance amendment will help maintain the
park systems. Mr. Wright also stated that Planning & Development Services sets the prices, and
the Parks & Recreation Department works with Planning & Development Services to develop
parks, land acquisition, and identifying improvements to spend fees using the Parks Board
approval.
Vice President of the Parks Board, Joel Cantrell, stated that the 25% credit was biggest topic of
discussion in the most recent board meeting. Mr. Cantrell also stated that the Board was
comfortable with the size and are looking toward simplifying the funding mechanism for the Parks
& Recreation Department.
Chairman Christiansen closed the public hearing.
Director of Planning & Development Services Ostrowski stated that as staff looks at setting the
fees, there is a formula based on several variables and the fee is not arbitrary but is based on
construction costs and land costs.
Commissioner Cornelius asked if there is a state or federal statute that this ordinance amendment
is related to.
Page 9 of 55
October 21, 2021 P&Z Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5
Director of Planning & Development Services Ostrowski clarified that the calculation can be done
in different ways, there just needs to be justification and represent true cost to construct or purchase
land.
Commissioner Mather motioned to recommend approval of the Ordinance Amendment as
presented. Commissioner Mirza seconded the motion.
There was general discussion.
The motion passed (6-0).
7. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items.
A Planning & Zoning Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A
statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any
deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent
meeting.
There was no discussion.
7. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 6:49 p.m.
Approved: Attest:
______________________________ ________________________________
Dennis Christiansen, Chairman Kristen Hejny, Admin Support Specialist
Planning & Zoning Commission Planning & Development Services
Page 10 of 55
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Scale 2 lots and 1 street projection on approximately 11.94 acres
Location Generally located north of the intersection of Summit Crossing Lane and
Harvey Road
Property Owner DHI Communities
Applicant Jones & Carter
Project Manager Anthony Armstrong, P. E., Land Development Review Administrator
aarmstrong@cstx.gov
Project Overview Two lots and a street projection are being created with this final plat.
This plat will consist of multifamily dwelling units and create a four way
intersection at Harvey Road and Sara Lane, all of which conform to UDO
standards. Parkland Dedication on the multifamily will be paid at the
time of building permitting.
Preliminary Plan Approved January 2021
Public Infrastructure Approximate Totals (linear feet):
350 Streets 1,506 Multiuse Path
241 Water Lines 480 Sidewalks
189 Storm Sewer Lines
Parkland Dedication Total fees of $687 per BR
Traffic Impact Analysis A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was submitted with the rezoning and
analyzed intersections in the area. All studied intersections are
anticipated to perform at an acceptable level of service.
Compliant with Comprehensive Plan
(including Master Plans) and Unified
Development Ordinance
Yes
Compliant with Subdivision
Regulations
Yes, with the exception of a previously approved waiver for UDO Section
8.3.G Block Length requirements in General Urban Context Zones
Staff Recommendation Approval
Supporting Materials
1. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map
2. Final Plat
Final Plat
of
Ascend at Harvey
(FP2021-000001)
Page 11 of 55
Page 12 of 55
Page 13 of 55
Page 14 of 55
Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying Firm Registration No. 100461-07
Texas Board of Professional Engineers Firm Registration No. F-439
150 Venture Drive, Suite 100 • College Station, Texas 77845 •979.731.8000
“”
“”
VICINITY MAP
NTS
ZIP CODE: 77845
PROJECT
LOCATION
Page 15 of 55
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Scale 17 lots and 1 common area on approximately 15.86 acres.
Location Generally located north of the intersection of William D Fitch Parkway
and Rock Prairie Road
Property Owner Williams Creek Lake Estates, Inc.
Applicant Schultz Engineering, LLC
Project Manager Brandi Garcia Tedrick, Staff Planner
btedrick@cstx.gov
Project Overview This is the fourth phase of a 6-phase single family clustered subdivision.
This Final Plat includes 17 single-family lots and approximately 1.4 acres
of common area. Parkland dedication fees are required to be paid prior
to filing of the plat.
Preliminary Plan Approved June 2017
Public Infrastructure Approximate Totals (linear feet):
1,615 Streets 1,050 Sanitary Sewer Lines
760 Water Lines (Wellborn SUD) 225 Sidewalks
750 Storm Sewer Lines
Parkland Dedication $1,261 of parkland dedication will be due for each single family lot
Traffic Impact Analysis Not required
Compliant with Comprehensive Plan
(including Master Plans) and Unified
Development Ordinance
Yes
Compliant with Subdivision
Regulations
Yes, except for the previously approved waiver to UDO Section
8.3.H.4.f.2 ‘Common Open Space Requirements for Cluster
Developments’.
Staff Recommendation Approval
Supporting Materials
1. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map
2. Final Plat
Final Plat
for
Williams Creek Lake Estates Phase 4
FP2021-000013
Page 16 of 55
Page 17 of 55
Page 18 of 55
Page 19 of 55
LOT 33
LOT 52
0.557 AC.
0.524 AC.
LOT 31
LOT 32
0.513 AC.
LOT 53
1.220 AC.
0.489 AC.
0.269 AC.
BLOCK 5
BLOCK 6
BLOCK 6
BLOCK 7
BLOCK 4
LOT 40
0.628 AC.
(27,370 SQ. FT.)
LOT 48
0.514 AC.
(22,381 SQ. FT.)
LOT 45
0.500 AC.
(21,777 SQ. FT.)
LOT 41
0.500 AC.
(21,775 SQ. FT.)
LOT 39
0.534 AC.
(23,276 SQ. FT.)
LOT 50
0.600 AC.
(26,143 SQ. FT.)
LOT 38
0.521 AC.
(22,688 SQ. FT.)
LOT 49
0.519 AC.
(22,627 SQ. FT.)
LOT 37
0.636 AC.
(27,695 SQ. FT.)
COMMON AREA 5
OPEN SPACE AND
STORMWATER DETENTION
1.405 AC.
(61,191 SQ. FT.)
LOT 36
0.618 AC.
(26,940 SQ. FT.)
LOT 47
1.437 AC.
(62,578 SQ. FT.)
LOT 35
0.743 AC.
(32,356 SQ. FT.)
LOT 46
1.089 AC.
(47,423 SQ. FT.)
LOT 44
0.655 AC.
(28,552 SQ. FT.)
LOT 51
0.524 AC.
(22,843 SQ. FT.)
LOT 43
0.460 AC.
(20,022 SQ. FT.)
LOT 42
0.700 AC.
(30,484 SQ. FT.)
JOE WILL DRIVE JOE WIL
L
C
O
U
R
T
JOE WILL
C
O
U
R
TWILLIAMS CREEK DRIVECOLLIE COURTBLOCK 4
BLOCK 6
JOE WI
L
L
D
R
I
V
E
FF=223.0'
FF=223.0'
“”
“”
“”
“”
“”
“”
“”
“”
“”
FINAL PLAT
WILLIAMS CREEK LAKE ESTATES
SUBDIVISION
PHASE 4
15.860 ACRES - 17 LOTS
THOMAS CARUTHERS LEAGUE, A-9
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
LOTS 35-37, BLOCK 4
LOT 51, BLOCK 5
LOTS 38-47, BLOCK 6
LOTS 48-50, BLOCK 7
(COMMON AREA 5 - 1.405 ACRES)
SCALE 1'' = 60'
APRIL 2021
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
WILLIAMS CREEK LAKE
ESTATES, INC.
P.O. BOX 800
COLEMAN, TX 76834
(979) 229-0310
TBPE NO. 12327
911 SOUTHWEST PKWY E.
College Station, Texas 77840
(979) 764-3900
ENGINEER:SURVEYOR:
Brad Kerr, RPLS No. 4502
Kerr Surveying, LLC
409 N. Texas Ave.
Bryan, TX 77803
(979) 268-3195
TBPELS FIRM # 10018500
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE WILLIAM D. FITCH PARKWAYROCK
P
R
A
I
R
I
E
R
O
A
D JOE WILL DRWI
L
L
IAM
S
C
R
E
EK
D
RWILLIAMS LAKE DRLEGEND
Page 20 of 55
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Scale 3 lots and 1 common area on approximately 14 acres
Location Generally located northwest of the intersection of Texas Avenue and
Harvey Mitchell Parkway
Property Owner Great Aggie Land LLC
Applicant Mitchell & Morgan
Project Manager Jesse DiMeolo, Staff Planner
jdimeolo@cstx.gov
Project Overview Three lots and a common area are being created with this final plat. This
plat will consist of commercial retail, multifamily dwelling units, and a
common area consisting largely of floodway, all of which conform to
UDO standards. Parkland Dedication on the multifamily will be paid at
the time of permitting.
Preliminary Plan May 2020
Public Infrastructure The plat requires 339 feet of Public Water line to be extended to serve
Lot 2.
Parkland Dedication Total fees of $687 per BR
Traffic Impact Analysis A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was submitted with the rezoning and
analyzed intersections in the area. The intersection of Texas Avenue and
Harvey Mitchell Parkway is anticipated to have unacceptable levels of
service (LOS) in the background condition but the proposed
development falls below the 5% threshold to require mitigation by the
development.
Compliant with Comprehensive Plan
(including Master Plans) and Unified
Development Ordinance
Yes
Compliant with Subdivision
Regulations
Yes
Staff Recommendation Approval
Supporting Materials
1. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map
2. Final Plat
Final Plat
of
The Creek Place
Being a Replat of
Lakeview Acres Lots 1C and 2A
and a Final Plat of an Unplatted 9.094 Acre Tract A004601, M
RECTOR (ICL) Tract 46
(FPCO2021-000014)
Page 21 of 55
Page 22 of 55
Page 23 of 55
Page 24 of 55
Page 25 of 55
Page 26 of 55
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Scale 30 lots, parkland dedication, and 4 common areas on approximately 10
acres.
Location Generally located northwest of the intersection of Diamondback Drive
and Arrington Road.
Property Owner OGC CNO JV, LLC
Applicant RME Consulting Engineers
Project Manager Erika Bridges, P.E., Assistant City Engineer
ebridges@cstx.gov
Project Overview This is the third phase of a 31-phase single-family clustered subdivision.
This Final Plat creates 30 lots and approximately 4.7 acres of common
area, including 1.7 acres of private right-of-way. The plat also dedicates
approximately 0.3 acres of parkland.
Preliminary Plan Approved October 2021
Public Infrastructure Approximate Totals (linear feet):
1,284 Streets (private) 1,727 Sanitary Sewer Lines
2,166 Water Lines 1,151 Sidewalks
52 Storm Sewer Lines
Parkland Dedication The Final Plat dedicates approximately 0.3 acres of Community and
Neighborhood Parkland. The developer has opted to construct the park
improvements in lieu of paying the development fee.
Traffic Impact Analysis A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was updated with the preliminary plan
approved in May of 2018.
Compliant with Comprehensive Plan
(including Master Plans) and Unified
Development Ordinance
Yes
Compliant with Subdivision
Regulations
Yes
Staff Recommendation Approval
Supporting Materials
1. Vicinity Map, Aerial, and Small Area Map
2. Final Plat
Final Plat
of
Greens Prairie Reserve
Section 3, Phase 301
FP2021-000002
Page 27 of 55
Page 28 of 55
Page 29 of 55
Page 30 of 55
Page 31 of 55
Planning & Zoning Commission
November 4, 2021
Scale 22 single family lots on approximately 57 acres of land
Location Located along Rock Prairie Road to the east of Williams
Creek Subdivision.
Applicant Schultz Engineering
Project Manager Robin Macias, Staff Planner
rmacias@cstx.gov
Project Overview This preliminary plan is for a private gated residential
development along a major thoroughfare. Preliminary plan
layouts show a private street connection to the
development being made on Rock Prairie Road. Private
streets do not qualify as a break in block. Due to the
distance between Campbell Court and the nearest
floodplain being greater than 1,500 feet, a waiver is
requested to the requirement of an additional break to the
block length along Rock Prairie Road.
Parkland Dedication Parkland dedication fees will be paid prior to the filing of
the final plat at a rate of $1261 per lot.
Traffic Impact Analysis Not applicable
Compliant with Comprehensive Plan
(including Master Plans) and Unified
Development Ordinance
Yes
Compliant with Subdivision Regulations Yes, with the exception of the waiver request related to
UDO Section 8.3.G Block Length requirements in Rural
Context Zones.
Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the waiver and the
Preliminary Plan.
Supporting Materials
1. Waiver Request
2. Applicant’s Supporting Information
3. Vicinity Map and Aerial
4. Preliminary Plan
Preliminary Plan
for
Williams Creek Reserve
PP2021-000003
Page 32 of 55
SUBDIVISION WAVIER REQUEST
The proposed Preliminary Plan is in compliance with the applicable Subdivision Regulations
contained in the UDO except for the following waiver request:
UDO Section 8.3.G.2 ‘Blocks’ (Block Length for Rural) – Per the requirements of this
section, block length should be a maximum of 1,500 ft for areas designated as Rural on the
Thoroughfare Plan Functional Classification and Context Class Map. As shown in the exhibit
below, Rock Prairie Road from Campbell Court to the nearest floodplain is approximately
3,084 feet, which exceeds the maximum block length by 1,584 feet. The applicant is
requesting this waiver as their intention is to provide a private gated subdivision.
In accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, when considering a waiver, the Planning and
Zoning Commission should make the following findings to approve the waiver:
1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such
that strict application of the provisions of this chapter will deprive the applicant of
the reasonable use of his land;
The developer’s intent is to build a private gated subdivision consisting of 22 residential
lots. Section 8.3.V.1.b states that streets required to meet block length or street
projection requirements shall not be private or gated. The surrounding properties are
either platted, floodplain, or developed with single family homes that utilize an access
agreement.
2) That the waivers are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant
Page 33 of 55
If the waiver is not granted, the subject tract can still be subdivided. However, the
waiver provides the ability for the developer to build private streets instead of
public streets.
3) The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or injurious to other property in the area, or to the City in administering
this chapter; and
The granting of the waiver for this development will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or injurious to other property in the area.
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 this waiver will not have a negative impact on the orderly subdivision of
other land in the area. The property to the west is platted as the Williams Creek
Subdivision. The property to the north consists entirely of floodplain. Any of the
properties to the east that has yet to be platted has been developed and takes access
from an access easement.
Page 34 of 55
WILLIAMS CREEK RESERVE SUBDIVISION
Waiver to Section 12-8.3.G. Blocks. 2. Block Length.
Justification for Waiver:
The requested waiver is to not require a public street projection into this proposed subdivision
which would break the block along the Rock Prairie Road. The distance between Campbell
Court and the FEMA floodplain is approximately 3,000 feet which is greater than the 1,500 feet
block length requirement.
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.
This development is a private, gated subdivision. Projection of a public street into the
subdivision would allow access to the subdivision by others who are not lot owners in
the subdivision.
2. The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right
of the applicant.
In order for this subdivision to be a private, gated subdivision, a public street projection
cannot be constructed. The street projection would take away the applicant’s right to
make the development private and gated.
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.
A public street projection provides no benefit to anyone. The public street cannot be
extended across the floodplain, and if extended to the east property line it would
provide access to only 1 landowner that adjoins this proposed subdivision on the east
side. The public street would serve only 2 or 3 houses in addition to this property.
Granting of this waiver will not be detrimental in any way.
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 previsions of the Unified Development
Ordinance.
Although the 4 adjoining tracts to the east are not platted, they are already developed.
The tracts that don’t abut Rock Prairie Road take access from an existing road located
in a permanent access easement that is 60 feet wide. As shown on the exhibit provided
with this waiver there is very little land that could be rezoned for development due to
the flood plain limits and the existing pond. The tract located on Rock Prairie Road
Page 35 of 55
has plenty of frontage to add street and subdivide the property. The granting of this
waiver will have no effect on subdivision of other land.
Page 36 of 55
Page 37 of 55
Page 38 of 55
WILLIAMS CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASE 6
WILLIAMS CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASE 7
WILLIAMS CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASE 7
CAMPBELL COURT
70' R.O.W. (7964/180, O.P.R.B.C.T.)FLOOD ZONE AEFLOOD ZONE'X' UNSHADEDPOINT OF BEGINNING
CENTERLINE OF
ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD
LOT 15
1.662 AC.
LOT 14
1.693 AC.
LOT 13
1.200 AC.
LOT 12
1.087 AC.LOT 11
1.107 AC.
LOT 19
1.145 AC.
LOT 18
1.145 AC.
LOT 17
1.145 AC.
LOT 16
1.140 AC.
LOT 8
1.128 AC.COMMON AREA C
13.285 AC.
KNOXVILLE WA
Y
COMMON AREA A
AND STORM WATER
DETENTION AREA
0.997 AC.
COMMON AREA E
0.049 AC.
COMMON AREA D
0.045 AC.
LOT 4
1.321 AC.
LOT 20
1.189 AC.
LOT 21
1.244 AC.
LOT 22
1.034 AC.
LOT 2
1.043 AC.
LOT 1
1.033 AC.
LOT 3
1.332 AC.
LOT 9
1.089 AC.
LOT 10
1.068 AC.
ROW DEDICATION
1.88 ACRES
WILLIAM MILLS
C
O
U
R
T
WI
L
L
I
A
M
M
I
L
L
S
C
O
U
R
T
ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD EASTROCK PRAIRIE ROAD EASTBLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
COMMON AREA B
10.328 AC.
LOT 5
1.141 AC.LOT 6
1.135 AC.
LOT 7
1.253 AC.
COMMON AREA F
0.022 AC.
TBPE NO. 12327
911 SOUTHWEST PKWY E.
College Station, Texas 77840
(979) 764-3900
ENGINEER:
PRELIMINARY PLAN
WILLIAMS CREEK RESERVE
SUBDIVISION
56.952 ACRES - 22 LOTS
LOTS 1-22, BLOCK 1
6 COMMON AREAS
5.891 ACRES OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
JOHN H JONES LEAGUE, A-26
BRYAN, BRAZOS, TEXAS
SURVEYOR:
Brad Kerr, RPLS No. 4502
Kerr Surveying, LLC
409 N. Texas Ave.
Bryan, TX 77803
(979) 268-3195
SCALE: 1 = 100
AUGUST, 2021OWNER/DEVELOPER:
Williams Creek Reserve LLC.
P.O. Box 800
Coleman, TX 76834
(979)229-0310
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FOR RECORDVICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
ROCK PRAIRIE R
D
E
A
S
TWILLIAM D. FITCH PKWYLICK CREEK PARK
WILLIAMS CREEK
CAMPBELL CTCIT
Y
O
F
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
I
T
Y
L
I
M
I
T
S
CITY OF COLLEGE STATIONCITY LIMITSLEGEND
Page 39 of 55
WILLIAMS CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASE 6
WILLIAMS CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASE 7
WILLIAMS CREEK SUBDIVISION PHASE 7
CAMPBELL COURT
70' R.O.W. (7964/180, O.P.R.B.C.T.)FLOOD ZONE AEFLOOD ZONE'X' UNSHADEDPOINT OF BEGINNING
CENTERLINE OF
ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD
LOT 15
1.662 AC.
LOT 14
1.693 AC.
LOT 13
1.200 AC.
LOT 12
1.087 AC.LOT 11
1.107 AC.
LOT 19
1.145 AC.
LOT 18
1.145 AC.
LOT 17
1.145 AC.
LOT 16
1.140 AC.
LOT 8
1.128 AC.COMMON AREA C
13.285 AC.
KNOXVILLE WA
Y
COMMON AREA A
AND STORM WATER
DETENTION AREA
0.997 AC.
COMMON AREA E
0.049 AC.
COMMON AREA D
0.045 AC.
LOT 4
1.321 AC.
LOT 20
1.189 AC.
LOT 21
1.244 AC.
LOT 22
1.034 AC.
LOT 2
1.043 AC.
LOT 1
1.033 AC.
LOT 3
1.332 AC.
LOT 9
1.089 AC.
LOT 10
1.068 AC.
ROW DEDICATION
1.88 ACRES
WILLIAM MILLS
C
O
U
R
T
WI
L
L
I
A
M
M
I
L
L
S
C
O
U
R
T
ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD EASTROCK PRAIRIE ROAD EASTBLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
BLOCK 1
COMMON AREA B
10.328 AC.
LOT 5
1.141 AC.LOT 6
1.135 AC.
LOT 7
1.253 AC.
COMMON AREA F
0.022 AC.
TBPE NO. 12327
911 SOUTHWEST PKWY E.
College Station, Texas 77840
(979) 764-3900
ENGINEER:
PRELIMINARY PLAN
WILLIAMS CREEK RESERVE
SUBDIVISION
56.952 ACRES - 22 LOTS
LOTS 1-22, BLOCK 1
6 COMMON AREAS
5.891 ACRES OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
JOHN H JONES LEAGUE, A-26
BRYAN, BRAZOS, TEXAS
SURVEYOR:
Brad Kerr, RPLS No. 4502
Kerr Surveying, LLC
409 N. Texas Ave.
Bryan, TX 77803
(979) 268-3195
SCALE: 1 = 100
AUGUST, 2021OWNER/DEVELOPER:
Williams Creek Reserve LLC.
P.O. Box 800
Coleman, TX 76834
(979)229-0310
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FOR RECORDVICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
ROCK PRAIRIE R
D
E
A
S
TWILLIAM D. FITCH PKWYLICK CREEK PARK
WILLIAMS CREEK
CAMPBELL CTCIT
Y
O
F
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
I
T
Y
L
I
M
I
T
S
CITY OF COLLEGE STATIONCITY LIMITSLEGEND
Page 40 of 55
TBPE NO. 12327
911 SOUTHWEST PKWY E.
College Station, Texas 77840
(979) 764-3900
ENGINEER:
PRELIMINARY PLAN
WILLIAMS CREEK RESERVE
SUBDIVISION
56.952 ACRES - 22 LOTS
LOTS 1-22, BLOCK 1
6 COMMON AREAS
5.891 ACRES OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
JOHN H JONES LEAGUE, A-26
BRYAN, BRAZOS, TEXAS
SURVEYOR:
Brad Kerr, RPLS No. 4502
Kerr Surveying, LLC
409 N. Texas Ave.
Bryan, TX 77803
(979) 268-3195
SCALE: 1 = 100
AUGUST, 2021OWNER/DEVELOPER:
Williams Creek Reserve LLC.
P.O. Box 800
Coleman, TX 76834
(979)229-0310
PRELIMINARY PLAN
NOT FOR RECORDVICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
ROCK PRAIRIE R
D
E
A
S
TWILLIAM D. FITCH PKWYLICK CREEK PARK
WILLIAMS CREEK
CAMPBELL CTCIT
Y
O
F
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
C
I
T
Y
L
I
M
I
T
S
CITY OF COLLEGE STATIONCITY LIMITSPage 41 of 55
Planning & Development Services • 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 • College Station, TX 77840
Office 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
November 4, 2021
TO: Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Amy Albright, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Processes and Notifications
Item:
Public hearing, presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding an ordinance amending
Appendix A, “Unified Development Ordinance,” Section 3.2 “General Approval Procedures” and
Section 3.22 “Comprehensive Plan Amendment” of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
College Station, Texas, regarding Comprehensive Plan Amendment processes and
notifications. Case# ORDA2021-000005. (Final action on this item is scheduled for the
November 22, 2021 City Council Meeting - subject to change).
Summary:
City Council requested that City staff develop and present options for supporting communication
between developers and neighborhoods. Staff present the following Unified Development
Ordinance amendments based on direction given during a workshop presentation to City
Council.
Background:
City Council requested that City staff develop and present options for supporting communication
between developers and neighborhoods. Planning and Development Services Director Michael
Ostrowski presented a workshop item on this topic to City Council on August 26, 2021. Two of
the recommendations were requiring a mailed notice for Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
& Character Map amendments as well as requiring neighborhood meetings for Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use & Character Map amendments. Council recommended staff proceed with
making these modifications within the Unified Development Ordinance.
Staff also identified a need to limit the timeframe in which Comprehensive Plan Amendment
applications may be submitted during major Comprehensive Plan updates. This stemmed from
the complexities to process Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications concurrently with the
Page 42 of 55
Planning & Development Services • 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 • College Station, TX 77840
Office 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
ten-year Comprehensive Plan update. Staff recommends that Comprehensive Plan Amendment
applications be paused six months prior to a major update in order to prevent conflicts between
the requests and update.
Supporting Materials:
1. Section 3.2 ‘General Approval Procedures’ Redline
2. Section 3.22 ‘Comprehensive Plan Amendment’ Redline
Page 43 of 55
Created: 2021-08-25 07:53:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 7)
Page 1 of 9
Sec. 3.2. General Approval Procedures.
A. Conformity with Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and the Comprehensive Plan.
The provisions of this UDO and the Comprehensive Plan shall apply to and be binding on any and all persons
seeking to develop, redevelop, or otherwise change existing land uses within the corporate limits of the City
of College Station and, where applicable, its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Compliance with the UDO and
the Comprehensive Plan includes the dedication and construction of identified infrastructure, right-of-way,
and improvement of specified facilities including but not limited to pedestrian facilities, bicycle facilities,
thoroughfares, etc.
B. Preapplication Conference.
Prior to the submission of any application required by this UDO, applicants are encouraged to schedule and
attend an optional preapplication conference with the City Staff. Preapplication conferences with City Staff
may be used to discuss, in general, procedures, standards, or regulations relating to a proposed
development. If a preapplication conference is requested, the Administrator may require the applicant to
submit information prior to the preapplication conference to allow City Staff time to review the proposal.
Any proposed development submitted or discussed as a part of a preapplication conference shall not be
considered a plan, plat, or permit application but will be considered an informal request for information prior
to the actual plat, plan, or permit application.
C. Application Forms and Fees.
The following regulations shall apply to all applications:
1. Forms.
Applications required under this UDO shall be submitted using correct, completed forms, where
applicable, along with any requested information and attachments, and in such numbers as required by
the City, including any checklists for submittals. The Administrator shall have the authority to request
any other pertinent information required to ensure compliance with this UDO.
2. Electronic Submission Required.
All plats and site plans shall be prepared and submitted upon request in an electronic form acceptable
to the Administrator and compatible with the City's Geographic Information System (GIS).
3. Fees.
Filing fees shall be established from time-to-time by resolution of the City Council for the purpose of
defraying the actual cost of processing the application.
a. All required fees shall be made payable to "The City of College Station."
b. An applicant who has paid the appropriate fee pursuant to submission of an application, but who
chooses to withdraw such application prior to any notification, review, or action taken, shall be
entitled to a refund of fifty (50) percent of the total amount paid upon written request to the City
except that the filing fee required for text or map amendments shall not be refundable.
c. The Administrator may waive or reduce development-related fees on a case-by-case basis
pursuant to applicable law or when the City is the applicant.
D. Application Deadline.
All applications shall be completed and submitted to the Administrator in accordance with a submittal
deadline schedule established by the City. All applications not delivered to the City by a date and time
according to the submittal deadline schedule shall be considered timely received for the next official
Page 44 of 55
Created: 2021-08-25 07:53:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 7)
Page 2 of 9
submittal deadline. An application shall not be considered officially submitted until application completeness
has been determined in accordance with this UDO.
E. Application Completeness.
An application shall be considered submitted only after the Administrator has determined it is complete as
set forth herein. This includes determining whether it is accompanied with any required forms, mandatory
information (including all exhibits), and the applicable fee. A determination of completeness does not
constitute a determination of compliance with the substantive requirements of this UDO nor precludes that
additional information and/or documents may still be required as identified during the formal review of the
application. If an application is determined to be incomplete, no further processing of the application shall
occur until the deficiencies are corrected. An application of any kind under this Article expires and
application fee forfeited on or after the forty-fifth (45th) day after the application is deemed incomplete if:
1. The applicant fails to provide documents or other information necessary to comply with the technical
requirements of this UDO as to form and content of the submittal;
2. The City notifies the applicant, in writing, of the failure to provide specific documents or other
information within ten (10) business days from the filing date, noting the date the application will
expire if same is not provided; and
3. The applicant fails to provide the specified documents or other information within the time provided in
the notice.
No vested rights accrue solely from the filing of an application that has expired pursuant to this Section, or
from the filing of a complete application that is subsequently denied.
F. Standards of Review.
Applications shall be reviewed based on the ordinances which are in effect at the time the permit application
is submitted with the City. It is the responsibility of the applicant to inform the Administrator if vesting is
claimed on a specific project application and to which ordinance the claim is vested in accordance with
Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code. This information shall be conveyed to the Administrator as
part of the permit application. The Administrator may attempt to inform the applicant if a project is able to
vest to a previously adopted ordinance. Notwithstanding anything in this UDO to the contrary, vesting is
limited to that which is provided in Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code or other applicable law.
G. Required Public Notice.
1. Summary of Notice Required.
Notice shall be required for development review as shown in the following table.
Application Type Published Mailed Agenda Posted
Comprehensive Plan Amendment X X** X
Zoning Map Amend. (Rezoning) X X X
UDO Text Amendment X X
Conditional Use Permit X X X
Subdivision - Replats* X* X* X
Design District - Site Plan/Bldg. X
Certificate of Appropriateness X
Certificate of Demolition (No economically
viable use)
X X X
Variances - ZBA X X X
Appeals - Site Plan & Driveway X
Waiver - Subdivision Design X
Page 45 of 55
Created: 2021-08-25 07:53:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 7)
Page 3 of 9
Waiver - Buffer Requirements X
Administrative Appeals X X
Development Exaction Appeal X
* Only when required per the Texas Local Government Code.
** Applies only to amendments to the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use and Character
Map. Shall not apply to Comprehensive Plan major evaluations and updates, which have
their own public notification and input processes.
2. Specific Notice Requirements.
a. Published Notice.
A Public Hearing Notice shall be placed by the Administrator at least once in the official
newspaper of the City before the fifteenth (15th) day before the date of the hearing for the
purpose of notifying the public of the time and place of such public hearing and the substance of
the public hearing agenda items that may be considered or reviewed.
b. Mailed Notice.
A notice of public hearing shall be sent to owners of record of real property, as indicated by the
most recently approved municipal tax roll, within two hundred (200) feet of the parcel under
consideration. The notice may be served by its deposit, properly addressed with postage paid, in
U.S. mail before the fifteenth (15th) day before the date of the hearing.
c. Content of Notice.
A published or mailed notice shall provide at least the following specific information:
1) The general location of land that is the subject of the application;
2) The substance of the application, including the magnitude of proposed development and
the current zoning district;
3) The time, date, and location of the public hearing; and
4) A phone number to contact the City.
d. Mailed Notice of Approval Requirements.
As required per the Texas Local Government Code for certain replats, such a replat that does not
have a public hearing shall provide notice of approval to owners of record (as indicated by the
most recently approved municipal or county tax roll) of lots in the original subdivision that are
within two hundred (200) feet of the lots to be replatted. The notification shall be mailed no later
than the fifteenth (15th) day after the replat is approved. The notice must include the zoning
designation of the property after the replat and a telephone number and e-mail address an
owner of a lot may use to contact the municipality about the replat.
3. Public Hearing Signs.
In addition to meeting the minimum statutory notice requirements, for the purpose of notifying the
public the Administrator may require the installation of a sign on the property advertising the public
hearing. The specifications including size, location, and content of public hearing signs shall be
established by the Administrator.
4. Required Hearings and Reviewing Body.
Page 46 of 55
Created: 2021-08-25 07:53:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 7)
Page 4 of 9
The following table illustrates the types of review requiring a public hearing and the review body
responsible for conducting the hearing.
Application Type Zoning
Board of
Adjustment
Landmark
Commission
Planning and
Zoning
Commission
City
Council
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
X X
Zoning Map Amendment
(Rezoning)
X X
Zoning Map Amendment
(Rezoning - Historic
Preservation Overlay District)
X X X
Certificate of Demolition (No
economically viable use)
X
UDO Text Amendment X X
Conditional Use Permit X X
Subdivision* X
Variances - ZBA X
Administrative Appeals X
Development Exaction Appeal X X**
* Only when required per the Texas Local Government Code.
** Request is considered by Council only if Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is
appealed.
H. Simultaneous Processing of Applications.
Two (2) or more forms of review and approval are typically required in the development process.
Development proposals that require applications for Zoning Map Amendments (Rezoning) are required to be
acted upon by the City Council before plat and other development applications will be accepted for review
by the City. In addition, Preliminary Plans are to be acted upon by the Planning and Zoning Commission or
the Administrator before a subsequent Final Plat will be accepted for review by the City. At the discretion of
the Administrator, plat and other applications for development approvals may be processed simultaneously,
so long as the approval procedures for each individual application can be completed pursuant to the
requirements of this UDO. Such processing shall occur at the applicant's own risk.
I. Expiration of Applications, Permits, and Projects.
1. Expiration of Inactive Applications.
An application that has been determined to be administratively complete and written staff review
comments provided to the applicant shall be deemed expired and closed in ninety (90) calendar days
from the date the most recent written review comments were provided by the City to the applicant, if
the applicant has not taken action by providing written response comments and revised documents to
the Administrator that seek to address the review comments.
2. Expiration of Approved Permits.
Page 47 of 55
Created: 2021-08-25 07:53:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 7)
Page 5 of 9
a. Unless otherwise specified by this UDO, any individual permit, authorization or approval required
in this UDO expires twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval, or as may be further
extended pursuant to the terms of this UDO, if no progress has been made towards completion
of the project. For purposes of this Section, progress towards completion of the project is as
defined by Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code.
b. If no expiration date was in effect at the time the approval of the permit occurred, an expiration
date of twenty-four (24) months from the approval shall apply.
3. Expiration of Projects.
a. For projects requiring more than one (1) permit, authorization or approval, there shall be a
project expiration date of five (5) years from the date the first complete application is filed for
the project or from the date vesting occurs pursuant to Chapter 245 Texas Local Government
Code if no progress is made towards completion of the project or if the expiration date is not
otherwise further extended pursuant to the terms of this UDO. For purposes of this Section,
progress towards completion of the project is as defined by Chapter 245 of the Texas Local
Government Code.
b. Any application for a new permit, authorization for approval or application to replace an existing
approved permit shall be deemed to commence a new development project, as of the date it is
filed, if the new application is not compatible with the permits preceding it in regards to the type
of proposed use(s), nature of the development, or significant changes to density or infrastructure
demands.
J. Appeals from Development Exaction Requirements.
1. Purpose.
The purpose of a petition for relief from a dedication or public infrastructure requirement is to ensure
that the application of uniform dedication and construction standards to a proposed development
does not result in a disproportionate burden on the property when considering the nature and extent
of the demands created by the proposed development on the City's roadways and other public
infrastructure.
2. Applicability.
A petition for relief under this Section may be filed by the applicant to contest any requirement to
dedicate land or to construct public improvements as required by this UDO, the Bryan/College Station
Unified Design Guidelines, or any other public infrastructure standards in any ordinance or regulation
to a plat application or to any related development related development application authorized by the
City or attached as a condition to approval of the application. A petition for relief shall not be used to
waive a standard on grounds subject to other appeal and waiver criteria outlined in this UDO.
3. Petition Requirements.
a. Form of Petition.
The petition for relief from a dedication or construction requirement shall allege that application
of the standard relating to the dedication or construction requirement is not roughly
proportional to the nature and extent of the impacts created by the proposed development on
the City's water, wastewater, storm drainage, parks, roadway system or other public
infrastructure.
b. Required Supporting Documentation.
The applicant shall provide information in support of the petition for relief that includes the
following:
Page 48 of 55
Created: 2021-08-25 07:53:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 7)
Page 6 of 9
1) Total capacity of the City's water, wastewater, storm drainage, parks, roadway system or
other public infrastructure to be utilized by the proposed development, employing
standard measures of capacity and equivalency tables relating the type of development
proposed to the quantity of system capacity to be consumed by the development. If the
proposed development is to be developed in phases, such information also shall be
provided for the entire development proposed, including any phases already developed;
2) Total capacity to be supplied to the City's water, wastewater, storm drainage, parks,
roadway system or other public infrastructure by the proposed dedication of an interest in
land or construction of public infrastructure. If the application is part of a phased
development, the information shall include any capacity supplied by prior dedications or
construction of public infrastructure;
3) Comparison of the capacity of the City's public facilities system(s) to be consumed by the
proposed development with the capacity to be supplied to such system(s) by the proposed
dedication of an interest in land or construction of public infrastructure. In making this
comparison, the impacts on the City's public infrastructure system(s) from the entire
development shall be considered;
4) The effect of any City participation in the costs of oversizing the public improvement to be
constructed in accordance with the City's requirements;
5) Any and all other information that alleges the dedication or construction requirement
imposed by the City is not roughly proportional to the impacts created by the proposed
development;
6) The proportionality analysis should not only be based on any immediate plans for the
property but should be based on the size of the property, existing and proposed use of the
property, and the development potential permitted by the existing zoning; and
7) Only costs directly related to the dedication or construction requirements should be
included in the analysis. Indirect costs, such as applications, permits, and fees, shall not be
included.
c. Time for Filing Petition and Supporting Documentation.
A petition for relief from a dedication or construction requirement shall be filed with the
Development Engineer within fourteen (14) calendar days following the Commission's decision to
approve, conditionally approve or deny an application for approval of an application. The
information in support of the petition as set forth above shall be filed with the Development
Engineer within sixty (60) calendar days following the initial decision, unless the applicant
(petitioner for relief) seeks an extension in writing. The Development Engineer may extend the
time for submitting the information for a period not to exceed an additional thirty (30) calendar
days for good cause shown.
d. Land in Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).
Where land or facilities to be dedicated are located in the ETJ of the City and are to be dedicated
to the applicable county, a petition for relief or documentation in support of the petition shall be
accepted as complete for review by the Development Engineer only when such petition or study
is accompanied by verification that a copy has been delivered to and accepted by the applicable
county.
4. Processing of Petitions and Decision.
a. Responsible Official.
Page 49 of 55
Created: 2021-08-25 07:53:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 7)
Page 7 of 9
The Development Engineer shall be the responsible official for reviewing a petition for relief from
a dedication or construction requirement. Where the petition is for relief from dedication of land
or construction of a facility in the City's ETJ that is to be dedicated to the applicable county, the
Development Engineer shall coordinate a recommendation with the appropriate county official
responsible for reviewing plats.
b. Evaluation and Recommendation.
1) The Development Engineer shall evaluate the petition and supporting documentation and
shall make a recommendation to the Commission for their consideration and
recommendation to the City Council, if applicable.
2) In evaluating the petition and documentation, the Development Engineer shall take into
account the maximum amount of any impact fees to be charged against the development
for the type of public infrastructure that is the subject of the petition, or similar
developments on the City's water, wastewater, storm drainage, parks, roadway system or
other public infrastructure. The Development Engineer may utilize any reasonable
methodology to evaluate, affirm, or refute the applicant's petition and supporting
documentation.
3) In order to achieve proportionality between the demands created by a proposed
development on public facilities and the obligation to provide adequate public facilities, the
City may participate in the costs of public infrastructure, credit or offset developer's
proposed obligations or otherwise relieve the property owner of any of the obligations in
response to a petition for relief from a dedication or construction requirement.
c. Decision-Maker.
The Commission shall decide the petition for relief from a dedication or construction
requirement.
d. Public Hearing.
The Commission shall conduct a public hearing within thirty (30) calendar days after the final
documentation supporting the petition is filed by the applicant with the Development Engineer.
e. Burden of Proof.
The applicant bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the application of a dedication or
construction requirement imposes a disproportionate burden on the applicant.
f. Decision.
The Commission shall consider the petition for relief from a dedication or construction
requirement based upon the following criteria:
1) The Commission shall determine whether the application of the standard or condition is
roughly proportional to the nature and extent of the impacts created by the proposed
development on the City's water, wastewater, storm drainage, parks, roadway system or
other public infrastructure, and whether the application of the standard or condition
reasonably benefits the development.
2) In making such determination, the Commission shall consider the documentation
submitted by the applicant, the report and recommendation of the Development Engineer
and, where the property is located within the City's ETJ, any recommendations from the
county official, as applicable.
g. Action.
Page 50 of 55
Created: 2021-08-25 07:53:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 7)
Page 8 of 9
Based on the decision criteria stated above, the Commission may take one (1) or more of the
following actions:
1) Deny the petition for relief, and impose the dedication or construction requirement as
required by this UDO;
2) Deny the petition for relief in whole or in part, upon finding that the proposed dedication
or construction requirements are inadequate to offset the impacts of the development on
the City's water, wastewater, storm drainage, parks, roadway system or other public
infrastructure; or
3) Grant the petition for relief in whole or in part, and waive any dedication or construction
requirement to the extent necessary to achieve proportionality, including consideration of
alternative designs for the public infrastructure systems or improvements.
h. Notification of Decision on Petition.
The applicant shall be notified of the decision on the petition for relief by the Development
Engineer within fourteen (14) calendar days following the Commission's decision.
5. Appeal of the Decision on a Petition for Relief.
a. Initiation of an Appeal.
The applicant, the Administrator, or no less than four (4) voting members of City Council may
appeal the decision of the Commission within fourteen (14) calendar days following the date of
the Commission's decision:
1) For an applicant-initiated appeal, a letter stating the reasons for the appeal, citing the
specific section(s) of the applicable ordinance requirement, shall be submitted by the
applicant.
2) The Administrator may, on his/her own initiative, appeal the decision of the Commission by
scheduling an appeal on the City Council's next available regularly scheduled meeting that
occurs after the Commission meeting at which the decision was made.
3) For a City Council-initiated appeal, the Council shall consider and act on whether it will
appeal the Commission's decision at its next available regularly scheduled meeting that
occurs after the Commission meeting at which the decision was made.
b. Notification of Appeal.
Both the applicant and the City shall be notified of the appeal request within fourteen (14)
calendar days. Appeals by the applicant shall include all documentation submitted for the appeal.
c. Council Decision.
The City Council shall consider a properly submitted appeal at its next available regularly
scheduled meeting. The City Council may affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the
Commission by simple majority vote. The decision of the City Council is final.
6. Expiration or Failure to File Application.
Where an application was denied based upon the imposition of the standard requiring dedication of
land or construction of a required public infrastructure and the Commission's decision, if not further
appealed (or the City Council's decision if further appealed as applicable), is to grant some level of
relief, the applicant must resubmit the application within sixty (60) calendar days following the date
the relief is granted. If such re-submittal of the application is not made within the sixty-day period, the
relief granted by the Commission (or City Council as applicable) on the petition shall expire.
Page 51 of 55
Created: 2021-08-25 07:53:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 7)
Page 9 of 9
7. Effect of Relief.
a. The Development Engineer may require the applicant to submit a modified application or
supporting materials consistent with the relief granted by the Commission on the petition.
b. The relief granted on the petition shall remain in effect for the period the application is in effect,
and shall expire upon expiration of the plat or related application.
K. Figures and Flow Charts.
The figures and flow charts provided in this UDO are intended to be graphical representations of procedures
or standards set forth in this UDO to assist in understanding the requirements of this UDO and are not
intended to be requirements themselves.
Per Ordinance No. 2011-3308 (January 13, 2011)
(Ord. No. 2012-3449 , Pt. 1(Exh. E), 9-27-2012; Ord. No. 2017-3967 , Pt. 1(Exh. D), 12-14-2017; Ord. No. 2020-4214
, Pt. 1(Exh. A), 10-8-2020)
Page 52 of 55
Created: 2021-08-25 07:53:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 7)
Page 1 of 3
Sec. 3.22. Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
A. Purpose.
For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound, stable, and desirable development within the territorial
limits of the City, the Comprehensive Plan, including specifically, the Land Use Plan and the Thoroughfare Plan,
shall be amended only based upon changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the City.
B. Initiation of Amendment.
An amendment may be initiated by:
1. City Council on its own motion;
2. The Planning and Zoning Commission;
3. The Administrator; or
4. The property owner(s).
C. Amendment Application.
A complete application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be submitted to the Administrator as set
forth in the General Approval Procedures Section in Article 3 of this UDO.
D. Time Limitations on Applications
Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications may be submitted on a rolling basis, except during the six (6)
month period prior to a Comprehensive Plan major evaluation or update. The beginning of the six (6) month
time limitation period shall be determined by counting backward from the expected date of the
Comprehensive Plan evaluation or update public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
ED. Approval Process.
1. Project Proposal Meeting.
Page 53 of 55
Created: 2021-08-25 07:53:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 7)
Page 2 of 3
After submitting an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Future Land Use and
Character Map or attending a Pre-Application Conference relating to the same, the applicant shall
request to set up a Project Proposal Meeting with City Staff. The purpose of this meeting is to begin
communicating with the local neighborhood early on in the process, and is not a forum for final
decisions or the acceptance of formal comments concerning public support or opposition.
Project Proposal Meetings shall abide by the following minimum requirements:
1. The applicant or an authorized representative must schedule and facilitate a minimum of one
Project Proposal Meeting to discuss the application or proposal. At a minimum, property owners
within 200 feet of the subject property must be notified by the applicant or authorized
representative.
2. When possible, City staff shall be present at the meeting to address questions relating to City
processes and requirements.
3. The Project Proposal Meeting shall be held on or in close proximity to the subject property, or
virtually.
4. The Project Proposal Meeting shall be held 30-60 days prior to the corresponding Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting.
2. Review and Report by Administrator.
Once the application is complete, the Administrator shall review the proposed amendment in light of
the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan and conditions in the City, and give a report to the
Commission and Council.
32. Recommendation by Planning and Zoning Commission.
a. Notice.
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall publish, and post, and mail public notice in
accordance with the General Approval Procedures Section in Article 3 of this UDO, and shall
recommend to the City Council such action as the Commission deems proper.
b. Public Hearing.
A public hearing shall be held by the Planning and Zoning Commission before making a report to
the City Council.
c. Review and Action by Planning and Zoning Commission.
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the amendment and approve, approve with
conditions, deny, or determine that the proposed development complies with the
Comprehensive Plan and no amendment is required. If the Commission determines that no
amendment is required, the applicant may proceed with the next step in the development
process. No further action by the City Council is required.
43. City Council Action.
a. Notice.
The City Council shall publish, and post, and/or mail public notice in accordance with the General
Approval Procedures Section in Article 3 of this UDO, before taking final action on a petition to
amend the Comprehensive Plan.
b. Public Hearing.
Page 54 of 55
Created: 2021-08-25 07:53:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 5, Update 7)
Page 3 of 3
The City Council shall hold a public hearing and approve, approve with modifications, or
disapprove the application to amend the Comprehensive Plan.
c. Review and Final Action by City Council.
In determining whether to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application to
amend the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council shall consider the following matters regarding
the proposed amendment:
1) Changed or changing conditions in the subject area of the City;
2) Compatibility with the existing uses, development patterns, and character of the
immediate area concerned, the general area, and the City as a whole;
3) Impact on environmentally sensitive and natural areas;
4) Impacts on infrastructure, including water, wastewater, drainage, and the transportation
network; and
5) Consistency with the goals and strategies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
EF. Limitation on Reapplication.
If a petition for a plan amendment is denied by the City Council, another petition for reclassification of the
same property or any portion thereof shall not be considered within a period of one hundred eighty (180)
days from the date of denial, unless the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that one (1) of the following
factors are applicable:
1. There is a substantial change in circumstances relevant to the issues and/or facts considered during
review of the application that might reasonably affect the decision-making body's application of the
relevant review standards to the development proposed in the application; or
2. New or additional information is available that was not available at the time of the review that might
reasonably affect the decision -making body's application of the relevant review standards to the
development proposed; or
3. A new application is proposed to be submitted that is materially different from the prior application
(e.g., proposes new uses or a substantial decrease in proposed densities or intensities); or
4. The final decision on the application was based on a material mistake of fact.
(Ord. No. 2012-3449 , Pt. 1(Exh. E), 9-27-2012; Ord. No. 2018-3984 , Pt. 1(Exh. B), 2-8-2018)
Page 55 of 55