The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMisc.January 26, 2011 Amanda, Thank you for sending the aerial photos we requested. The holidays and restoration projects have also slowed us down and that's the reason for our late response. Karan and I have put some research into this development project and have confirmed that the current site plan design is going to have a dramatic negative affect on the quality of life and the values of our homes in our rural subdivision (The woodlands/Cedar Ridge neighborhood) and the surrounding homes along Dowling Road. We are sending several pictures of how a similar development of a multifamily, multistory project in Bryan has negatively affected the preexisting residential neighborhood, including the rise in the noise level, traffic, and crime. Karan and I lived in that neighborhood for eleven years and still owned a home next to the development that we have been unable to sell. It is my understanding from my first discussion with Jennifer Prochazka, Senior Planner with the Planning and Development Service of College Station that your company's current site design does not violate any of the city development codes. But, I would like to state that there are certain cases where the written code, cannot address all the possibilities of a negative and intrusive impact caused to others by the design and development of these types of projects. I believe when we encounter situations like this everyone involved and affected should take a step back and closely examine how to prevent any negative lasting effects on those affected by the planning of the project. This is where good judgment and common sense takes over in place of just saying well we're following the existing codes so we're not doing anything wrong! Amanda, I believe that your company can have a very successful development if we can just come to a reasonable agreement on the set back of the development from our property lines and the gasoline pipeline between us. During our first phone conversation you asked me what I wanted. I request that no development take place on our side of the existing flood plain and stream leading up toward the back of my land and to Dowling Road. This would leave between a 200' to 300' hundred foot "green belt". This would not affect the existing forest tree line and vegetation. This would be enough space to cover the intrusive visual effect of the multilevel multifamily commercial style apartment buildings that are not in harmony with our rural subdivision and surrounding custom built homes. Without going into greater detail, and in a nutshell, that's what I want! In a spirit of good will and cooperation I am offering to pay for your round trip plane fare, hotel stay, food, and car rental for two days and nights if you will come down and allow Karan and I to show you our concerns, discuss this with you, and come up with a reasonable solution for all parties involved. If you accept our offer please bring your hiking boots. Waiting for your response, Sincerely, Virgil L. Marko ORDINANCE NO. 3137 Exhibit "C" Page 6 Statement of Purpose & Intent: This Planned Development District is for multi -family developments that will consist of single detached units, duplexes, and attached units associated with neighborhood commercial uses that support the development and surrounding neighborhoods. Residential uses are scaled, oriented, and buffered so as not to be intrusive to the surrounding single family developments. Natural areas are preserved and large open space green areas are provided for'the efficient use of land and to serve as an amenity to the development, provide recreational opportunities, and preserve existing vegetation, floodplain, and drainage features. General Concepts not already shown or noted on the Concept Plan: Residential uses are located in areas Al, A2, and A3. Residential areas will meet the R-4 Multi- family zoning district uses and requirements, which allow up to 20 dwelling units per acre. Retail uses are located in areas B1, B2, B3, B4, F1, and F2. Areas Bl, B2, B3, and B4 are will meet the C-3 Light Commercial zoning district uses and requirements. Areas F 1 and F2 will also meet the C-3 Light Commercial district requirements with additional uses and/or modifications from uses permitted in the C-1 General Commercial district. In addition to C-3 Light Commercial uses, F 1 and F2 are also permitted the following uses: • Car Wash; • Commercial Amusements; • Drive-in / thm window; • Fuel Sales (as per Specific Use Standards for C-1); • Health Club / Sports Facility, Outdoor; • Hotel; • Night Club, Bar or Tavern (only with a Conditional Use Permit); • Restaurants (with no Specific Use Standards for C-3); and • Theater Area Fl is limited to 75,000 square feet of gross floor area that may be comprised of any combination of the following uses: • Animal Care Facility, Indoor; • Art Studio / Gallery; • Car Wash; • Commercial Amusements; • Day Care, Commercial; • Drive-in / thru window; • Dry Cleaners & Laundry; • Educational Facility, Indoor Instruction; • Educational Facility, Primary & Secondary; March 21, 2012 Amanda Wallis Capstone Development 431 Off Ice Park Drive Birmingham, Al 35223 Dear Amanda, Karan and I request that Capstone does not proceed with the construction of Cottage Apartment units' number 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 until we can firmly agree In writing and establish that Capstone's Development abutting our property will be buffered so as not to be intrusive to us. It is our opinion, Including the removal of the planned berm and bike/hike trail next to our property, that the size and location of the above mentioned multi story apartment units are still too close and extremely visibly intrusive to us and our neighbors. This will diminish the quality of our existing life style. I am sending as a reminder to you another copy of my letter to you dated January 26, 2011 with pictures, the "statement of Purpose and Intent" of City Ordinance No. 3137, and the "purpose" of buffer requirements. I have gone to the College Station City Attorneys' Office and attempted to contact the City Attorney about the City's legal interoperation of Ordinance 3137 and the written buffer requirements as pertaining to our issue, but no one has responded to me yet, and that was about a month ago. I also request that you ask your corporate legal counsel to review this and send me his professional opinion. Amanda, I am also extending a second invitation to you to come to College Station, my property, and survey the impact this project is having on us. As I stated before, I am offering to pay for your round trip plane fare, hotel stay, food, and rental car for two days and nights in an honorable attempt to show you the negative effect your project is having on us and our neighbors. If you do not build the above mentioned units your project will not suffer financially, you are building enough apartments to populate a small town. We have discussed our rights with our attorney, and I would really like to resolve this final issue with you without resorting to the legal route. Sincerely, Vi,$ifZ /Ula oz? S� �` ! FF �r 1 i t(} a +1 •J..i 11 Jb � i 99""yx fi f' 3u1, t 4 yy� %.e.�wr Can /nee2� �?�7`ensioa S�-c-2� �_- � ///�/�►�C/J�ti!'rC.R. �l..rJ1JST3"G�G�OiI. 7G(o 3 mn ln DU �G� �,•y DG� �'nU /�//r��e� 7�' ae" 1/1/2011 THRU 12131/2011 CRIME STATS REPORTING DISTRICT FOR AREA AROUND - 3207 HEATHERWOOD 03-ROBBERY 04-ASSAULT 08 - BURGLARY 06-THEFT //14 laa/ 07 - MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 1 08 - RECOVERED VEHICLE OUTSIDE AGE6 1 10 - FORGERY & COUNTERFEIT 2 11-FRAUD 2 12-EMBEZZLEMENT 1 14 - VANDALISM 14 18F - MARIJUANA POSS 3 18G - DEM, METHADONE POSS 2 21 - DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE .1 23-DRUNKENNESS 7 26 - ALL OTHER 6 cw LI O 1 52 r>»eS L6ml'zL JY'i s"!nV poe/) s L'O/zLl1 1/17/2012 March 21, 2012 Amanda Wallis Capstone Development 431 Office Park Drive Birmingham, Al 35223 Dear Amanda, Karan and I request that Capstone does not proceed with the construction of Cottage Apartment units' number 148, 149, 150, 151, 152 until we can firmly agree in writing and establish that Capstone's Development abutting our property will be buffered so as not to be Intrusive to us. it is our opinion, including the removal of the planned berm and bike/hike trail next to our property, that the size and location of the above mentioned multi story apartment units are still too close and extremely visibly, intrusive to us and our neighbors. This will diminish the quality of our existing life style. I am sending as a reminder to you another copy of my letter to you dated January 26, 2011 with pictures, the "statement of Purpose and Intent" of City Ordinance No. 3137, and the "purpose" of buffer requirements. I have gone to the College Station City Attorneys' Office and attempted to contact the City Attorney about the City's legal interoperation of Ordinance 3137 and the written buffer requirements as pertaining to our issue, but no one has responded to me yet, and that was about a month ago. I also request that you ask your corporate legal counsel to review this and send me his professional opinion. Amanda, I am also extending a second invitation to you to come to College Station, my property, and survey the impact this project is having on us. As I stated before, I am offering to pay for your round trip plane fare, hotel stay, food, and rental car for two days and nights in an honorable attempt to show you the negative effect your project is having on us and our neighbors. If you do not build the above mentioned units your project will not suffer financially, you are building enough apartments to populate a small town. We have discussed our rights with our attorney, and I would really like to resolve this final issue with you without resorting to the legal route. Sincerely,