Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc 61 , 2 April 30, 2007 To: City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station Dear Representative: In addition to the central concern emphasized by the attached petition, we have some technical issues/questions to be addressed as the City considers Rezoning to R-1 the property identified as 2708 Harvey Road. Weaskthat matters are investstaff de us and City leadership in all communications as theseimportant 1. Although the Subject Property is assigned a Harvey Road address,the broad floodplain of Carter Creek makes the habitable portion of this property accessible only by Brookway Drive. Given the narrowness of Brookway,what is the City's plan for accommodating the added traffic? 2. Since the habitable portion of this ground is basically a peninsular jut into a floodplain and given that portions of the existing Windwood subdivision are drained through this property,how will development of this parcel impact existing drainage patterns? What protective provisions will be required of the developer to remedy potential problems? May we assume that the developer will not be allowed to conduct any detrimental "fill" operations and that impairment of existing drainage will not be allowed? 3. Although it is slow to be recognized, Carter Creek's long passage through the City provides a valuable environmental resource. Among the many benefits are a connected habitat where a number of native animal species can survive and even reproduce. Among these are animals such as deer, coyotes, raccoons, snakes,rabbits, owls, and hawks. Has the City commenced any planning relative to these public goods, and is it the City's long-term intent to allow all nonfloodable acreage to be developed? That is, are planning staffrecommending the Subject Property aing yet about reserving some dry lans afor wildlife? If so, there are strong arguments useful parcel. 4. Beyond the habitat value already cited,what "green space" set-asides are planned for our area of the community? Windwood residents are asking if we're being neglected eectd in terms of foot- or bike-accessible green space. To acclimate you, a q inventory of our immediate surroundings, old and new, includes the following: • Post Oak Mall, Lock-n-Roll Storage, Sam's • Hwy 6, elevated relative to Windwood so that traffic noise permeates deeply • Hwy 30, destined to become 4 lanes, and osyibly to be at Carter Creek to elevated contend with the periodic flooding it now experien • the Hwy 6 and 30 interchange Page 1 of 8 • Gander Mountain, Academy, and yet-to-be-named commerce on the Windwood side of Gander Mountain • Hwy 6 frontage road—location of increased traffic,particularly once Gander Mountain opens and becomes a regional shopping destination • very dense residential development on two properties behind Gander Mountain (Staff: How many possible homes are in current plats or are allowed in the forthcoming plats of this area?) • There is a new sign at Hwy 30 and Appomattox, announcing a development along the narrow strip opposite the Windwood subdivision. Clearly,with the possible exception of the Carter Creek floodplain, Windwood is about to be completely encircled by dense and commercially oriented development. We wish to ask whether neighborhoods such as ours are formally entitled to some relief and if this may be the responsibility of a green space program or committee? 5. One of the unique, enjoyed elements of our subdivision and a small bordering segment of the Subject Property is fairly large and healthy stands of trees. Existing trees on the Subject Property have also served a strong drainage function by keeping soils in place during storm events. These trees also provide some measure of noise reduction from Harvey Road traffic, and we will sorely miss this buffer if it is lost. What provisions or visions does the City intend to promote with regard to the preservation of this unique green space on the Subject Property? Developers no longer seem to be respectful of treed property during construction, and trees often die after the homes are sold. Recognizing the valued-adding,buffering, and drainage functions of this grove, are there proactive approaches which can aid their survival? 6. We surmise that the overhead power lines and underground gas line easement bisecting the Subject Property are an interesting burden for the developer, and we have reservations about any developer's commitment and ability to design desirable housing space in such a constrained environment. After viewing the "incorporation" of these power lines in much larger developments such as Raintree and Pebble Creek, we wonder how the City can insure that the platting process will hold reasonable promise of providing valuable living space. Supporting information and discussion of these 6 issue groups are placed after our petition and its justification. Our petition follows. We request that this petition and its reasoned justifications be seriously examined. Page 2 of 8 Petition We, the undersigned and concerned property owners and residents of Windwood Drive and Brookway Drive in the Windwood subdivision, believe that rational development of the Subject Property identified as 2708 Harvey Road must adhere to a central principle: any new homes bordering Windwood lots and/or using an extended Brookway Drive to connect to our neighborhood are an extension of our neighborhood and should be developed in a like manner. To do otherwise would be injurious to our neighborhood's integrity and degrade the property values in which we have heavily invested. Among the reasoned implications of this principle are the following items. • Lot sizes platted for this development should establish a similar "look and feel" so as to provide continuity with the existing development. As the most proximate bordering street and given the likelihood of abutting backyards, existing lot sizes along Windwood Drive should heavily guide platting. • Any Brookway "entrance" to additional homes should have an appearance which suggests nothing other than a continuous Windwood development. There should be no structural elements suggesting anything other than a smooth transition. Indeed, the transition should be seamless in our opinion. • With the understandable exception of Appomattox Drive, sidewalks do not exist in our subdivision. In order to maintain continuity with existing Brookway properties we prefer that sidewalks not be employed in the Windwood extension except in the case of a new communal facility such as a small park, should one be incorporated. We ask that City staff and leadership work with the development interests to guarantee that these points are advanced. If the spirit of neighborhood integrity cannot be pursued in these manners for this development extension, then we object to the rezoning request. We ask that leadership instruct staff to deviate from the 5,000 ft2 per home site latitude currently available to R-1. As documented below, neighboring Windwood lots are nearly three times as large on average, inferring that even a R-1B designation(8,000 ft2) is inadequate without further platting guidance. In addition, we ask that staff and leadership exercise their collective knowledge and experience to establish other development parameters for the Subject Property that we all can benefit from. Justification and more informational background for these items follow our signatures. Page 3 of 8 Signatures by Property Owners Receiving Notice of a Rezoning Hearing This petition is signed by 100 % of property owners receiving the City's mailed notice of a rezoning hearing. Signature(s) Address � v(,.c 2-7I6 01-zooK14I,61 Z / ' // (j 41 ( 1'V/ski S woo, - -----, .. /t . —0,/ CiarTi4tA"'+-rAdv- - ("for/ iAr , ''117 l i' j 6` 03 LoitriAloccl IG -i/k,,YtL vo / _ '/ • c • 07 ' ___-- i Oh_ & cell L(3ir� 'i 0-300c4 • I Dman 64/? W/A/cLuoeci •-P9i:Viicia..) � ,��Q 6L/ 2I ttiteldtozod i — r•o1ctNAy "1, .' . IP1. Gy 13 ircd wood X-tt-evt-, ' Ii.--4f44-- 4,e0/01/A-v 94. a G 64)05- wi,J.nc.000a Dom. Page 4 of 8 Signatures by other Property Owners or Residents of Windwood Drive This petition is signed by /00 % of owner-occupants residing on Windwood Drive but not receiving the City's mailed notice of a rezoning hearing. Signature(s) Address a. r / %.� . ip____4N.., 0 Al ' a �' tIcua} 6,L16 C Wr Judi,-A.,3 d6, D / 7, Z(2 X OC8 (iitclu2-3CALr. 1.,-i ill 1..../4.0,„,_e, j_.2.4-, re• (5 Or //1 0/t. --- 6 ttl7)._ IL ) . 0 i ,_ ....„7- ' • Li2( c.sz: ,.).._)-c3.J0-e 3,76--/ L,6)_cte_h_04)_ecD ,_,AL W " (27 c`)— w/r\-1J1^J4C)o- f I . 27o 3 vv, a o°iv /4r, I\ /7 ° -/C_ 2?712S 2/ 0 10-butO P/4. 1 t_ (___,_--3. -- .)-,_ 7---7 '71 vzi I LZ /a..J i.7. Az, VIA c4i2--L__4_r 2goI SIJ C+ (2431'.! Nit" „v. _i2_,4- bc(iq L,)1 blc-1_ 600-QL)(- . 41- 1 (e' .,..).4;I . bocti ‘.42:,"scx.... , , - 2 t7 L(U bilVkliCk 70(L Oro Ale 41017 A P4, t 71/1(6K--- y V t�2 U; ild 1,dOTt Pa- - Page 5 of 8 Signatures by other Property Owners or Residents of Brookway Drive This petition is signed by % of owner-occupants residing on Brookway Drive but not receiving the City's mailed notice of a rezoning hearing. Signature(s) Address / 1 //. 06, 2.-4— 2 7 0 c 1-3rao k y DK / idip _ I 8/L06/< I giv itj,t4L----/' z M- efoehe-6/47 4,7 ca--roQ ----- ,J L G% IOW , 1 1/?, -i � - � ti CCoA albs, Q ,A- /14C ) ? 7 -, „1,_ 7 7 / ' , -/f/ ,73 bel 13--�YPkit Page 6 of 8 • Petition Justification The more realistically developable land of the Subject Property is a small parcel in relation to the existing Windwood subdivision. The potential value of these new homes derives significantly from the attractive appearance and layout of nearby Windwood homes, so it is not unreasonable to insist upon reciprocity. We are completely respectful of the notion that we do not own the Subject Property and are not entitled to detract from its value. This notion is balanced by the fact that the developers do not own our property nor should they have the right to diminish its value. We appreciate that there are challenges in profiting from the development of a small land parcel that is heavily degraded by easements and flood plain. However, those are the longstanding realities of the Subject Property. Those conditions are not of our creation, nor is it reasonable to reapportion the costs of these problems to us, in the form of either high density or aesthetically destructive development or other problems. Moreover, it seems apparent from the sizing of Brookway Drive that few (if any) homes were realistically envisioned beyond the Brookway dead end, which has served cattlemen for many years. Based on information obtained from the Brazos County Appraisal District and focusing on those 13 Windwood and Brookway properties in receipt of the City-distributed rezoning request, average lot size is 14,745 ft2. Of these properties, 11 appear to have the potential for abutting new lots on the Subject Property. In addition,under the age-old concept of good fences make good neighbors, and the usual scenario where two neighbors make better fences, it strikes us as completely sensible to extend current Windwood lot lines in platting the new development. That is, lot widths should conform with one another. We are aware that the City does not require plats as elements in the rezoning process, and platting details are worked out between the developer and the City staff Yet, this pro- development arrangement does not limit Council's power to guide forthcoming platting in its instructions to staff. Due to the obvious and unusually close relationship between this small new development area and our own subdivision, we request that our neighborhood representatives be consulted as part of the platting process. Page 7 of 8 Additional Details for the 6 Issue/Question Groups Presented by the Letter 1. Rarely are both sides of Brookway not occupied with parked vehicles. Often Brookway is reduced to a single lane street. Eventually, two undeveloped lots on Brookway are likely to have homes and this will naturally add some street congestion. Currently, one of the school bus drivers will drive down Brookway and loop through Windwood Drive,but another makes an awkward u-turn at Appomattox and Brookway to avoid the limited width of Brookway. In the event of a misguided plan to connect the new development to both Brookway and a new street to the Horse Haven subdivision—Switch Station—Gander Mountain area, we strongly object as such a connector is likely to invite considerable cut-through traffic with harmful consequences for the entire subdivision. Clearly, these concerns are also supportive of very low housing density in the new addition. 2. One specific example of concern is the drainage ditch running west to east out of Windwood Subdivision and then dividing the two high land areas of the Subject Property where housing may be intended. Is this to be bridged or culverted in some manner? In addition to our interest in unimpaired drainage out of Windwood, a related matter concerns the discharge of water from the roofed and hardened area of the Subject Property once it is developed. Given the slopes involved on the flooded sides of the subject property, what measures can be taken to assure that this property will discharge its water in a non-erosive manner? Additional erosion will contribute to downstream problems and may even come to degrade homes on the Subject Property. Problems such as these may negatively influence property values there, and in our neighborhood as well. Moreover, it is increasingly recognized that development should also maintain the green areas that allow rain water to be absorbed, so that normal water tables can be maintained. Extensive channelization and impervious cover, such as that which may occur throughout the College Station "eastside," limits an important form of water conservation that has traditionally benefited the region. 3. Development in many U.S. places often proceeds in an environmentally haphazard fashion,which fragments ecosystems and injures the ability of certain species to forage or hunt over a range sufficient to sustain life. The Carter Creek bottomland offers a natural and relatively inexpensive opportunity for improving upon normal development patterns. Moreover, the longitudinal extensiveness of this floodplain offers considerable continuous range, particularly if we can resist channelizing it and if some high-ground land diversity can be reserved for all biota and as a flood haven. Because the Subject Property is already marginalized by challenges such as its electricity and gas easements, its near-flood status, small size, and drainage responsibilities, it is an obviously low-cost candidate for fulfilling this role. 4. A notable plus in our locale is Veteran's Park,but many feel they cannot safely walk or bike to it along Harvey Road, so its main convenience is a shorter drive for Windwood residents. Its entrance is 0.7 miles from the entrance to the subdivision. 5. no additional discussion required 6. no additional discussion required Page 8 of 8 I have received 3 inquiries about the rezoning as well as a petition signed by a number of Windwood residents regarding the development of the subject tract in opposition to the rezoning. Address the points of the petition? 1 . As for the added traffic, Ken, but secondary access required, additional thoroughfare, plus Appomatox 2. Fill issues, Carol, drainage guidelines 3. City Greenway Plan is voluntary, Parks responsible for Greenways, however, floodplain and streams designation is not just 100 year floodplain but is also open space for greenways and wildlife habitats that would otherwise be developable. No know method for relief. EPA? 4. No requirement for tree preservation currently, site condition that can be a condition of the rezoning. 5. Platting will meet minimum requirements of the subdivision as required by State statute. Power lines run through parkland area. Won't be able to develop homes in easement. 6. Cannot require development to be same as Windwood under R-1 . State statute allows for the development of private property that meets local subdivision regulation. 7. Cannot guarantee 8. Sidewalks are required on one side of all streets that are less than 60 feet in ROW. And on all streets 50 feet and less. If none are provided, they must seek a variance from the P&Z from the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Staff would be opposed to such a variance in that the City should actively promote safe alternative modes of transportation. 9. Can consider less dense districts, R-1 B, A-OR Questions April 30, 2007 To: City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station Dear Representative: In addition to the central concern emphasized by the attached petition,we have some technical issues/questions to be addressed as the City considers Rezoning to R-1 the property identified as 2708 Harvey Road. We ask that City staff include us and City leadership in all communications as these important matters are investigated. 1. Although the Subject Property is assigned a Harvey Road address, the broad floodplain of Carter Creek makes the habitable portion of this property accessible only by Brookway Drive. Given the narrowness of Brookway, what is the City's plan for accommodating the added traffic? 2. Since the habitable portion of this ground is basically a peninsular jut into a floodplain and given that portions of the existing Windwood subdivision are drained through this property,how will development of this parcel impact existing drainage patterns? What protective provisions will be required of the developer to remedy potential problems? May we assume that the developer will not be allowed to conduct any detrimental "fill" operations and that impairment of existing drainage will not be allowed? 3. Although it is slow to be recognized, Carter Creek's long passage through the City provides a valuable environmental resource. Among the many benefits are a connected habitat where a number of native animal species can survive and even reproduce. Among these are animals such as deer, coyotes,raccoons, snakes, rabbits, owls, and hawks. Has the City commenced any planning relative to these public goods, and is it the City's long-term intent to allow all nonfloodable acreage to be developed? That is, are planning staff thinking yet about reserving some dry land for wildlife? If so,there are strong arguments recommending the Subject Property as a useful parcel. 4. Beyond the habitat value already cited,what "green space" set-asides are planned for our area of the community? Windwood residents are asking if we're being neglected in terms of foot- or bike-accessible green space. To acclimate you, a quick inventory of our immediate surroundings, old and new, includes the following: • Post Oak Mall, Lock-n-Roll Storage, Sam's • Hwy 6, elevated relative to Windwood so that traffic noise permeates deeply • Hwy 30, destined to become 4 lanes, and possibly to be elevated to contend with the periodic flooding it now experiences at the Carter Creek crossing • the Hwy 6 and 30 interchange Page 1 of 8 56 • Gander Mountain, Academy, and yet-to-be-named commerce on the Windwood side of Gander Mountain • Hwy 6 frontage road—location of increased traffic,particularly once Gander Mountain opens and becomes a regional shopping destination • very dense residential development on two properties behind Gander Mountain (Staff: How many possible homes are in current plats or are allowed in the forthcoming plats of this area?) • There is a new sign at Hwy 30 and Appomattox, announcing a development along the narrow strip opposite the Windwood subdivision. Clearly,with the possible exception of the Carter Creek floodplain,Windwood is about to be completely encircled by dense and commercially oriented development. We wish to ask whether neighborhoods such as ours are formally entitled to some relief and if this may be the responsibility of a green space program or committee? 5. One of the unique, enjoyed elements of our subdivision and a small bordering segment of the Subject Property is fairly large and healthy stands of trees. Existing trees on the Subject Property have also served a strong drainage function by keeping soils in place during storm events. These trees also provide some measure of noise reduction from Harvey Road traffic, and we will sorely miss this buffer if it is lost. What provisions or visions does the City intend to promote with regard to the preservation of this unique green space on the Subject Property? Developers no longer seem to be respectful of treed property during construction, and trees often die after the homes are sold. Recognizing the valued-adding,buffering, and drainage functions of this grove, are there proactive approaches which can aid their survival? 6. We surmise that the overhead power lines and underground gas line easement bisecting the Subject Property are an interesting burden for the developer, and we have reservations about any developer's commitment and ability to design desirable housing space in such a constrained environment. After viewing the "incorporation" of these power lines in much larger developments such as Raintree and Pebble Creek, we wonder how the City can insure that the platting process will hold reasonable promise of providing valuable living space. Supporting information and discussion of these 6 issue groups are placed after our petition and its justification. Our petition follows. We request that this petition and its reasoned justifications be seriously examined. Page 2 of 8 57 0 C Petition • We, the undersigned and concerned property owners and residents of Windwood Drive • and Brookway Drive-in the Windwood subdivision,believe that rational development of the Subject Property identified as 2708 Harvey Road must adhere to a central principle: any new homes bordering Windwood lots and/or using an extended Brookway Drive to connect to our neighborhood are an extension of our neighborhood and should be developed in a like manner. To do otherwise would be injurious to our neighborhood's integrity and degrade the property values in which we have heavily invested. Among the reasoned implications of this principle are the following items. • Lot sizes platted for this development should establish a similar"look and feel" so as to provide continuity with the existing development. As the most proximate bordering street and given the likelihood of abutting backyards, existing lot sizes along Windwood Drive should heavily guide platting. • Any Brookway "entrance" to additional homes should have an appearance which suggests nothing other than a continuous Windwood development. There should be no structural elements suggesting anything other than a smooth transition. Indeed, the transition should be seamless in our opinion. • With the understandable exception of Appomattox Drive, sidewalks do not exist in our subdivision. In order to maintain continuity with existing Brookway properties we prefer that sidewalks not be employed in the Windwood extension except in the case of a new communal facility such as a small park, should one be incorporated. We ask that City staff and leadership work with the development interests to guarantee that these points are advanced. If the spirit of neighborhood integrity cannot be pursued in these manners for this development extension, then we object to the rezoning request. We ask that leadership instruct staff to deviate from the 5,000 ft2 per home site latitude currently available to R-1. As documented below,neighboring Windwood lots are nearly three times as large on average, inferring that even a R-1B designation(8,000 ft2) is inadequate without further platting guidance. In addition,we ask that staff and leadership exercise their collective knowledge and experience to establish other development parameters for the Subject Property that we all can benefit from. Justification and more informational background for these items follow our signatures. Page 3 of 8 58 Signatures by Property Owners Receiving Notice of a Rezoning Hearing This petition is signed by /00 % of property owners receiving the City's mailed notice of a rezoning hearing. Signature(s) Address � jZ;0,{,,,t, at..4, x6 2-716 8 Roo Kk14.1 Z"VL 4' / 6 l f I✓►HcPviooX -- ,....ii. _•-... ,4,1 . .:„....„,,,_ i , . Qrtf2 •! Wry /'_ et_ (040'7 lArdionoct � • - • .�.• X103 Ull/pf do i LQR , . 09•i- _ f!i el(-7 / 4,2i_Ci.n4-4-1t� . / I Ai- lac,// 2m�ccxoo 4 • 1 ID A-c l s aA ;641 17 GU,Nod uuo-ed s-1)..V_A-Clia_.) (--16:Ainn,a_ig2- , 6L1,21 1,iiricAo-ozd ,/ •11.)A.474,--if3-(2.ck. 5,,,,k,...y P .1/et.t ' erteAt43-4-, ai / di'' r .,:,..L.. 6405- W,,Lc.,400b D2, ____E.,--rHa.___ f-- Page 4 of 8 59 Signatures by other Property Owners or Residents of Windwood Drive This petition is signed by /00 %of owner-occupants residing on Windwood Drive but not receiving the City's mailed notice of a rezoning hearing. Signature(s) Address ,moi/ Li. ' j •" �►' I /L,. (o did a Win(Lox/ Dr, l/V,, y"`" - 'ti111^ , . (p oW to jai a d d jr J L.0, „Yfit L ',,-.- . ., 2z...: is,-_, 6(0 <) ‹- i, , L____c_i\Q* -- 6k Piz_ A ) „fa( ies„( L} xjo_er • ...---7 . a 7 6-7 1...6)--0-&-Os,{)--6-4a) .�� W • ,2 -2 c s (,IJ/ 1)1"Jdoct 1 : ..,ArIII,a . ..410 1 27o 3 P2/, ;,64,,n,;fDr, ',.11117, c:_\‘ .rj :(.__ ,2?72'76) 621A.'010-od Ai( 1 i —� 7:70V GL)I LI / r.,.),: X)✓, , SI 01 Wilyktoc3,,E2 C71-' V_...„ A ...... it,) N„---, . _. , , t oLktr l cf to nckurJa....)C-Q-Dc , -a 41 'iro00, t /1i 20Wind1LJ tpl . . , 271,06 V6; \)3C,00 W, , Page 5 of 8 60 Signatures by other Property Owners or Residents of Brookway Drive This petition is signed by % of owner-occupants residing on Brookway Drive but not receiving the City's mailed notice of a rezoning hearing. Signature(s) Address / ' //-• � ,'' . 7° c 13roo kiA)y Dv. Ap , . jr Cj2-�-- ) 10 ► 81 ()(0KWQ 1"V/ 4 7L---- -z„ /L � .2-1 D EMk, //tj -J ,t-ter c otA / ��� -2? `7 / 15•-/i4 Page 6 of 8 61 0 Petition Justification The more realistically developable land of the Subject Property is a small parcel in relation to the existing Windwood subdivision. The potential value of these new homes derives significantly from the attractive appearance and layout of nearby Windwood homes, so it is not unreasonable to insist upon reciprocity. We completely respectful of the notion that we do not own the Subject Property and are not entitled to detract from its value. This notion is balanced by the fact that the developers do not own our property nor should they have the right to diminish its value. We appreciate that there are challenges in profiting from the development of a small land parcel that is heavily degraded by easements and flood plain. However,those are the longstanding realities of the Subject Property. Those conditions are not of our creation,nor is it reasonable to reapportion the costs of these problems to us, in the form of either high density or aesthetically destructive development or other problems. Moreover, it seems apparent from the sizing of Brookway Drive that few(if any)homes were realistically envisioned beyond the Brookway dead end,which has served cattlemen for many years. Based on information obtained from the Brazos County Appraisal District and focusing on those 13 Windwood and Brookway properties in receipt of the City-distributed rezoning request, average lot size is 14,745 ft2. Of these properties, 11 appear to have the potential for abutting new lots on the Subject Property. In addition,under the age-old concept of good fences make good neighbors, and the usual scenario where two neighbors make better fences, it strikes us as completely sensible to extend current Windwood lot lines in platting the new development. That is, lot widths should conform with one another. We are aware that the City does not require plats as elements in the rezoning process, and platting details are worked out between the developer and the City staff. Yet, this pro- development arrangement does not limit Council's power to guide forthcoming platting in its instructions to staff. Due to the obvious and unusually close relationship between this small new development area and our own subdivision,we request that our neighborhood representatives be consulted as part of the platting process. rw Page 7 of 8 62 L V w.. tom. Additional Details for the 6 Issue/Question Groups Presented by the Letter 1. Rarely are both sides of Brookway not occupied with parked vehicles. Often Brookway is reduced to a single lane street. Eventually,two undeveloped lots on Brookway are likely to have homes and this will naturally add some street congestion. Currently,one of the school bus drivers will drive down Brookway and loop through Windwood Drive,but another makes an awkward u-turn at Appomattox and Brookway to avoid the limited width of Brookway. In the event of a misguided plan to connect the new development to both Brookway and a new street to the Horse Haven subdivision—Switch Station—Gander Mountain area,we strongly object as such a connector is likely to invite considerable cut-through traffic with harmful consequences for the entire subdivision. Clearly,these concerns are also supportive of very low housing density in the new addition. 2. One specific example of concern is the drainage ditch running west to east out of Windwood Subdivision and then dividing the two high land areas of the Subject Property where housing may be intended. Is this to be bridged or culverted in some manner? In addition to our interest in unimpaired drainage out of Windwood, a related matter concerns the discharge of water from the roofed and hardened area of the Subject Property once it is developed. Given the slopes involved on the flooded sides of the subject property,what measures can be taken to assure that this property will discharge its water in a non-erosive manner? Additional erosion will contribute to downstream problems and may even come to degrade homes on the Subject Property. Problems such as these may negatively influence property values there, and Nikue in our neighborhood as well. Moreover, it is increasingly recognized that development should also maintain the green areas that allow rain water to be absorbed, so that normal water tables can be maintained. Extensive channelization and impervious cover, such as that which may occur throughout the College Station "eastside," limits an important form of water conservation that has traditionally benefited the region. 3. Development in many U.S. places often proceeds in an environmentally haphazard fashion,which fragments ecosystems and injures the ability of certain species to forage or hunt over a range sufficient to sustain life. The Carter Creek bottomland offers a natural and relatively inexpensive opportunity for improving upon normal development patterns. Moreover, the longitudinal extensiveness of this floodplain offers considerable continuous range,particularly if we can resist channelizing it and if some high-ground land diversity can be reserved for all biota and as a flood haven. Because the Subject Property is already marginalized by challenges such as its electricity and gas easements, its near-flood status, small size, and drainage responsibilities, it is an obviously low-cost candidate for fulfilling this role. 4. A notable plus in our locale is Veteran's Park,but many feel they cannot safely walk or bike to it along Harvey Road, so its main convenience is a shorter drive for Windwood residents. Its entrance is 0.7 miles from the entrance to the subdivision. 5. no additional discussion required 6. no additional discussion required Page 8 of 8 63 April 30, 2007 To: City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station Dear Representative: In addition to the central concern emphasized by the attached petition, we have some technical issues/questions to be addressed as the City considers Rezoning to R-1 the property identified as 2708 Harvey Road. We ask that City staff include us and City leadership in all communications as these important matters are investigated. 1. Although the Subject Property is assigned a Harvey Road address, the broad floodplain of Carter Creek makes the habitable portion of this property accessible only by Brookway Drive. Given the narrowness of Brookway, what is the City's plan for accommodating the added traffic? 2. Since the habitable portion of this ground is basically a peninsular jut into a floodplain and given that portions of the existing Windwood subdivision are drained through this property, how will development of this parcel impact existing drainage patterns? What protective provisions will be required of the developer to remedy potential problems? May we assume that the developer will not be allowed to conduct any detrimental "fill" operations and that impairment of existing drainage will not be allowed? 3. Although it is slow to be recognized, Carter Creek's long passage through the City provides a valuable environmental resource. Among the many benefits are a connected habitat where a number of native animal species can survive and even reproduce. Among these are animals such as deer, coyotes, raccoons, snakes, rabbits, owls, and hawks. Has the City commenced any planning relative to these public goods, and is it the City's long-term intent to allow all nonfloodable acreage to be developed? That is, are planning staff thinking yet about reserving some dry land for wildlife? If so, there are strong arguments recommending the Subject Property as a useful parcel. 4. Beyond the habitat value already cited, what "green space" set-asides are planned for our area of the community? Windwood residents are asking if we're being neglected in terms of foot- or bike-accessible green space. To acclimate you, a quick inventory of our immediate surroundings, old and new, includes the following: • Post Oak Mall, Lock-n-Roll Storage, Sam's • Hwy 6, elevated relative to Windwood so that traffic noise permeates deeply • Hwy 30, destined to become 4 lanes, and possibly to be elevated to contend with the periodic flooding it now experiences at the Carter Creek crossing • the Hwy 6 and 30 interchange Page 1 of 8 N*0010/ • Gander Mountain, Academy, and yet-to-be-named commerce on the Windwood side of Gander Mountain • Hwy 6 frontage road—location of increased traffic, particularly once Gander Mountain opens and becomes a regional shopping destination • very dense residential development on two properties behind Gander Mountain (Staff: How many possible homes are in current plats or are allowed in the forthcoming plats of this area?) • There is a new sign at Hwy 30 and Appomattox, announcing a development along the narrow strip opposite the Windwood subdivision. Clearly, with the possible exception of the Carter Creek floodplain, Windwood is about to be completely encircled by dense and commercially oriented development. We wish to ask whether neighborhoods such as ours are formally entitled to some relief and if this may be the responsibility of a green space program or committee? 5. One of the unique, enjoyed elements of our subdivision and a small bordering segment of the Subject Property is fairly large and healthy stands of trees. Existing trees on the Subject Property have also served a strong drainage function by keeping soils in place during storm events. These trees also provide some measure of noise reduction from Harvey Road traffic, and we will sorely miss this buffer if it is lost. What provisions or visions does the City intend to promote with regard to the preservation of this unique green space on the Subject Property? Developers no longer seem to be respectful of treed property during construction, and trees often die after the homes are sold. Recognizing the valued-adding, buffering, and drainage functions of this grove, are there proactive approaches which can aid their survival? 6. We surmise that the overhead power lines and underground gas line easement bisecting the Subject Property are an interesting burden for the developer, and we have reservations about any developer's commitment and ability to design desirable housing space in such a constrained environment. After viewing the "incorporation" of these power lines in much larger developments such as Raintree and Pebble Creek, we wonder how the City can insure that the platting process will hold reasonable promise of providing valuable living space. Supporting information and discussion of these 6 issue groups are placed after our petition and its justification. Our petition follows. We request that this petition and its reasoned justifications be seriously examined. Page 2 of 8 o Petition We, the undersigned and concerned property owners and residents of Windwood Drive and Brookway Drive in the Windwood subdivision, believe that rational development of the Subject Property identified as 2708 Harvey Road must adhere to a central principle: any new homes bordering Windwood lots and/or using an extended Brookway Drive to connect to our neighborhood are an extension of our neighborhood and should be developed in a like manner. To do otherwise would be injurious to our neighborhood's integrity and degrade the property values in which we have heavily invested. Among the reasoned implications of this principle are the following items. • Lot sizes platted for this development should establish a similar "look and feel" so as to provide continuity with the existing development. As the most proximate bordering street and given the likelihood of abutting backyards, existing lot sizes along Windwood Drive should heavily guide platting. • Any Brookway "entrance" to additional homes should have an appearance which suggests nothing other than a continuous Windwood development. There should be no structural elements suggesting anything other than a smooth transition. Indeed, the transition should be seamless in our opinion. • With the understandable exception of Appomattox Drive, sidewalks do not exist in our subdivision. In order to maintain continuity with existing Brookway properties we prefer that sidewalks not be employed in the Windwood extension except in the case of a new communal facility such as a small park, should one be incorporated. We ask that City staff and leadership work with the development interests to guarantee that these points are advanced. If the spirit of neighborhood integrity cannot be pursued in these manners for this development extension, then we object to the rezoning request. We ask that leadership instruct staff to deviate from the 5,000 ft2 per home site latitude currently available to R-1. As documented below, neighboring Windwood lots are nearly three times as large on average, inferring that even a R-1B designation(8,000 ft2) is inadequate without further platting guidance. In addition, we ask that staff and leadership exercise their collective knowledge and experience to establish other development parameters for the Subject Property that we all can benefit from. Justification and more informational background for these items follow our signatures. Page 3 of 8 Signatures by Property Owners Receiving Notice of a Rezoning Hearing This petition is signed by /00 % of property owners receiving the City's mailed notice of a rezoning hearing. ignature(s) Address ar(„Z,J c� 2-71 b 131200 K141,6:1‘XerL (� V �/ ' 6 4/l f k/i‘N S woo • aru • " Taoir9' bgos Uii med ��- &cell Z(34-70/‘ (, C.�.ba J � • . I D s an. 6'117 WI Aid wo•&ci (3 s P90-ti-Ci- il71.-) 1. ,�0- (oLfo2 i ttlieldcozzd ?--T , ,i , Inv ( is zoir,ciwood 7 e ' 1 ccA ' ete -t-eivt-. ,4 / % a OI ` . 69,x / ttod �'� 6yos 1/J1.41,1400D D2. Page 4 of 8 Signatures by other Property Owners or Residents of Windwood Drive This petition is signed by /00 % of owner-occupants residing on Windwood Drive but not receiving the City's mailed notice of a rezoning hearing. Signature(s) Address i 0• '' ' " dpi �� • 6 ',Len. Gi/i!I 6/u/Otxll Dr, , . < . ,2 i i - a 1)U nPa.tu - F 6. 6(flWr l'.(Jbd() cT 4- dri.A., / A - r 6 k � ' f ( 10,..}...„..,- 3.76i 1..6-01-0-0-0--0--6-01) . . W 27 c• - W I'- J 'Qo-S oi A 4 ,., r .• 270 3 P14 ildiveme/Dr, A , a?7P 62 //uOtifOtd 5k (. . (-----"------ - ---- ---- 7:76# (tet))L-1 /h,;("T,) /2✓` ..-- -t-.--‘,41 P 2'101 WINA00,27 C If Nil. ... , t bc((q Lc*nct-00Q lac . 41101 (`464 �.a•cl i . PLO ' ' - -)'7vv tijivvic, -4 Or, 44 (I' t 46" IK---- V V/A0ii 1 ilVO-11 W - 1p, , a , Z1,06 1,�; .Zcoc) W. 1 Page 5 of 8 Signatures by other Property Owners or Residents of Brookway Drive This petition is signed by % of owner-occupants residing on Brookway Drive but not receiving the City's mailed notice of a rezoning hearing. Signature(s) Address f - 01.( 1--, --- 27° .- 131-00k-IAJay T), —� _— ''''' _ i Jr .• C Wirr s.. � � — ) 1-Ql 6/L06 wQ — I A4t/ y‘2,t /L---/' 7_, 7 . ,.&-c-)e44-(.7 j ca -76 \-- i i zu..., A 2101.9 ENV K - /71/' i,i 4/yi --'lam"_ ca-7l bt- ci k-4-Gl *1/4-_ c_:`�--2. C o1 is >R-,-0 "A' / ii „;.....�w 27 ° 7 3,- 1,�4. 7 7 / , lz //ze----- -7 7 / i3 /-�1,k Page 6 of 8 C Petition Justification The more realistically developable land of the Subject Property is a small parcel in relation to the existing Windwood subdivision. The potential value of these new homes derives significantly from the attractive appearance and layout of nearby Windwood homes, so it is not unreasonable to insist upon reciprocity. We are completely respectful of the notion that we do not own the Subject Property and are not entitled to detract from its value. This notion is balanced by the fact that the developers do not own our property nor should they have the right to diminish its value. We appreciate that there are challenges in profiting from the development of a small land parcel that is heavily degraded by easements and flood plain. However, those are the longstanding realities of the Subject Property. Those conditions are not of our creation, nor is it reasonable to reapportion the costs of these problems to us, in the form of either high density or aesthetically destructive development or other problems. Moreover, it seems apparent from the sizing of Brookway Drive that few (if any) homes were realistically envisioned beyond the Brookway dead end, which has served cattlemen for many years. Based on information obtained from the Brazos County Appraisal District and focusing on those 13 Windwood and Brookway properties in receipt of the City-distributed rezoning request, average lot size is 14,745 ft2. Of these properties, 11 appear to have the potential for abutting new lots on the Subject Property. In addition, under the age-old concept of good fences make good neighbors, and the usual scenario where two neighbors make better fences, it strikes us as completely sensible to extend current Windwood lot lines in platting the new development. That is, lot widths should conform with one another. We are aware that the City does not require plats as elements in the rezoning process, and platting details are worked out between the developer and the City staff. Yet, this pro- development arrangement does not limit Council's power to guide forthcoming platting in its instructions to staff. Due to the obvious and unusually close relationship between this small new development area and our own subdivision, we request that our neighborhood representatives be consulted as part of the platting process. Page 7 of 8 4 Additional Details for the 6 Issue/Question Groups Presented by the Letter 1. Rarely are both sides of Brookway not occupied with parked vehicles. Often Brookway is reduced to a single lane street. Eventually, two undeveloped lots on Brookway are likely to have homes and this will naturally add some street congestion. Currently, one of the school bus drivers will drive down Brookway and loop through Windwood Drive,but another makes an awkward u-turn at Appomattox and Brookway to avoid the limited width of Brookway. In the event of a misguided plan to connect the new development to both Brookway and a new street to the Horse Haven subdivision—Switch Station—Gander Mountain area, we strongly object as such a connector is likely to invite considerable cut-through traffic with harmful consequences for the entire subdivision. Clearly, these concerns are also supportive of very low housing density in the new addition. 2. One specific example of concern is the drainage ditch running west to east out of Windwood Subdivision and then dividing the two high land areas of the Subject Property where housing may be intended. Is this to be bridged or culverted in some manner? In addition to our interest in unimpaired drainage out of Windwood, a related matter concerns the discharge of water from the roofed and hardened area of the Subject Property once it is developed. Given the slopes involved on the flooded sides of the subject property, what measures can be taken to assure that this property will discharge its water in a non-erosive manner? Additional erosion will contribute to downstream problems and may even come to degrade homes on the Subject Property. Problems such as these may negatively influence property values there, and in our neighborhood as well. Moreover, it is increasingly recognized that development should also maintain the green areas that allow rain water to be absorbed, so that normal water tables can be maintained. Extensive channelization and impervious cover, such as that which may occur throughout the College Station "eastside," limits an important form of water conservation that has traditionally benefited the region. 3. Development in many U.S. places often proceeds in an environmentally haphazard fashion, which fragments ecosystems and injures the ability of certain species to forage or hunt over a range sufficient to sustain life. The Carter Creek bottomland offers a natural and relatively inexpensive opportunity for improving upon normal development patterns. Moreover, the longitudinal extensiveness of this floodplain offers considerable continuous range,particularly if we can resist channelizing it and if some high-ground land diversity can be reserved for all biota and as a flood haven. Because the Subject Property is already marginalized by challenges such as its electricity and gas easements, its near-flood status, small size, and drainage responsibilities, it is an obviously low-cost candidate for fulfilling this role. 4. A notable plus in our locale is Veteran's Park, but many feel they cannot safely walk or bike to it along Harvey Road, so its main convenience is a shorter drive for Windwood residents. Its entrance is 0.7 miles from the entrance to the subdivision. 5. no additional discussion required 6. no additional discussion required Page 8 of 8