Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous4. With'such small dwellings proposed for the development, we are concerned-how they will be occupied. Specifically, we are concerned that they will become student housing, instead of true single family dwellings. This. will entail a high level of traffic in an area that otherwise has a high concentration of children walking and biking to school and to the Church for after school activities. 5. There is the definite possibility that our parking lot will be used as overflow parking for the properties to be built. This would be an especial problem on weekends, when we hold our worship services, and in the evenings when there are activities for youth and adults going on nearly every day of the week. 6. There is also the potential of safety and maintenance problems for us as a Church, if in fact the property becomes primarily student housing, due to the more transient nature of such housing. 7. From the plans, it is uncertain what type of fence, if any, will be placed between the proposed single family dwellings and the Church's property. Our concern is that if there is no fence, or a low chain-link fence, people will use the Church parking lot and simply climb over the fence into their backyard. We would oppose anything less than a 6 foot fence, preferably of wooden plank constuction. 8. Also of concern about the fence, is the detention area to built on lot 10. Will this area be fenced of to prevent children getting into it, and who will be responsible for maintaining both its appearance and safety? We would like to see it fenced. I would like to thank you for the careful consideration that you .gave to our concerns, and to those of all the neighbors, when rezoning this :lot was considered last May. I would like to make it clear that the Church is not opposed to any development of the said lot, only that we care about the type and nature of any development. After all, the developer does not have to live with their project as neighbors for the next 20 years or more; we do. Sincerely Bishop cc: C. Richard Shumway, President, College Station Stake e )ES~IS ~~-FIST OF ~~TTER-~f~,Y S1-~II~TS TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY WARD College Station Texas Stake 17 May, 1994 Planning Division City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842-9960 To the Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: As a Bishop of the Church that is located immediately to the south of the lot in question, I wish to make a formal statement of opposition to the proposed rezoning. of the .3.94 acres at 2800 Welsh from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Duplexes. There are, I believe, substantive reasons for believing that retaining the present zoning is in the best interests of the existing property owners in the area, and of the city as a whole: 1. There is a clear natural boundary, namely the drainage line immediately to the north of the lot in question, that serves. to separate it from the existing area of duplexes. All other areas south of this boundary, between Wellborn Rd. and Rio Grande, are zoned as single family. 2. The presence of up to 66 additional cars (11 duplexes x 2 units per duplex x 3 cars per unit) in one small side street would represent a substantial increase to a traffic flow that is already quite heavy at peak times. This is a particular concern since we frequently have activities after school and in the evening when there are many children and teenagers around. 3. We are also concerned that our parking lot would be used as overflow parking for either the inhabitants of the duplexes, or their visitors. This would be a particular problem on weekends, when we are holding Church meetings. 4. We feel that rezoning would lead to additional concerns for the safety and maintenance of our property, due to the more transient nature of duplex housing. Finally, we would like to point out that at the. time of'the initial purchase of the lot on which we built our chapel,. we were told by the original developer, Mr. Bill Fitch, that the adjacent vacant lot was zoned for single-family. dwellings, and this would not be changed. Our Church has a policy, that has been developed after many years of experience all over the country and all over the world, of only building in single-family zoned areas. Sincerely avid M. Ellis Bishop SENT BY~Xerox Telecopier 7021 ;11-16-84 ; 5~28PM ; 4088478726 409764 8486;# 1 ~~ Post•It'^' brand fax transrnittal memo 7671 ~ 01 pages Frern cod rr - ~!f ~~er~ °' Dept; 1.~ ~ ~ S ~. P onaN ~V,s, 1 ~a~ Fax ~ ~ ~ (,~ 1 ax # ~ ~ S ' ~ 2911 Aztec Court t0 College Station, Tx: 77845. .. November 15,1894 Plannlnp and Zoning Commission City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 t 101 Texas Ave:' College Station, Tx. X7842 Re: proposed resubdlvlsfon of tract B,block 5b Southvwod Valley 24-A, 2800 Welsh. Dear Commissioners: The`purpose of this letter Is to register a forma! protest to the proposed replatting of the above property. The proposed replattng is high density and not compatible tMth the existing ~ neighborhood. i This proposed replatting is simply a disguise for the rejected reaoning request this developer submitted six months earlier. The same reasons for rejection of the rezoning to duplexes are existent in this proposal. -increased no9se -increased traffic -poor maintenance of rented properties -degradation of the-area j -occupancy will b® student rental -decrease inproperty values of existing homes It is not our desire to halt development. of this property.. Rather, it our request that this replattin® resemble existing single-family platting in the immediate nelghbofiood. Allorvin~ the proposed replatting represents a significant change to the character of single=family living in the eras. ~ Even if the developer is In full compliance with local government ordinance requirements, I urge the members of the planning and zoning comrnlssion to remember the overvuhelmir>g opposltlan of residents In this area to the developers proposed zoning change to duplexes six months earlier. Please have the courege to see this masquerade for wfiat it really Is and reject this replatting reque§t. Instruct the developler to submit a plat thaf resembles existing subdivision ~ standards. i Sincerely, n,~ U' ~ f v~Gu g~~~ , r~`~' J~J, and Margaref C. Palincsar 'I I i . t t ,~.~ ofjk ~ ~._ ~ ..~ C'~, t _ .., ~ ~ / ~ , _ , p (/('pp 643 ~~~ 6i~ 3y ~j i ~ l~~ ~~~~.- I .I ~~r.. ~ ~ .. i~ /~/~~ ~~ ~`~~ ~f mot.. ~~ ~}~" ~ r '~ ~~ ''`'~ !9 ~ ji pl~V~ J ~f ~`'l ~ 1 ~ F ~ f E { E ; /s p f. ~ ~ (j ~ ~~ ~'~ ~ r -'~ - le,i,'; ~,(,~~ x' ~ ~' + ~~~ -G.- _ e 7~ {p,., ,~ I; 4 .% g"v ~ ~ 7r. { 9~ y. ~rwA7.! [r ~_ ~ ~~ ' l ~~i'\ it t !ri 1 ~ i~ t i ~~ ~ ~, ~ (, f~ 9 v~~ ~ ~,`Ir J ~_ -~'~'~ ~!~/'F~ ,, 1 r~ ~ ;,~t ,~_ .- _~~., r ~~,1 ! E!<; it ~ ~ ~ i; ~~. ~. '' ~` ` ~~` ~ l f.! ( ~~_ /,p f ~"Fig ~~~~ (..~:~~ f ~~'~ t~- ~ 9 „ t, i'~ ~.. - ~ ! , ,;~ at~~~_ r, ~ ~` i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / r" ( ~ ,~ ~: I ~ I L ~ Ji ~ t.~~ - `" t "' ' Q w ~ i ..r .. %f~ ~I ,.,~..~~~ ~ ~ ~ ,, i 1 ~ -~~ J d .. ~- ~-~` ~ ~. C ~~ t ~ , ~~ , ,err a,. r, ~ //~.,~ ~,-,~ t ~' ;>'~~~ -- e 1 V 7i. ;1 ,~ ~ ~ /j )r ~~ ..x! 1, d ., ~ , ~ .~ ~ ~ r a - ~ r '~ ~ y `j ~~ 1f i ~ 5!2 c i G-; i~ ~~ T .~...~~..~ t/ +f9 ., i~ ~i ! { ~ ,/+~~ r,''' I ~+.,iy ti_$ (i Zal;~~~/v1,. v~~ T 1~~-",~ 1 , v4 /~'+.~~o`~! 1. r ~ ; ~' l,,y r ~ i ~ l / ~ p~ ~~/ t~~ f l _ ~/'4' ~f~ ~~ ~ 'Jj` 7 L ~ 11 4 T `, ~~ _ ~ ~ ~. ,i ~ ~,;.~ f f € d' t ., /, , i-; / /), ....1 ~' i~ ~ y LGA ~ ( i;F7a ~ fl.~M1 f ,~fJ~~l.. ~'~.~. r^ a j~ '}~ f ~ '~ ~ ~~_. j/~i ~/` l ~~ i ~I` j ~ {l~l1''~ ~ r ('~ 1 l+ 1. ~"` r .~, l-' '~ ~'` '~ s, __ _ ! I ~ ~~ ~' /~!(+ ~ J~ ii'~ ~r ~~ l J~'~ds ~ .-t~.l ~,~f~; ~: ~'~' ~ ,~ 9._ ( L ~ z c;l~~v 1 ~ 1~4:i _ Cr .J@ ~ g-~ -~ w ~ , ~ .. ~ ~ !, v ..~ ~.~ .._ J ~~~_ _~'3i~'.. `~ Y ~ ~ it ~,~~ ~~a~,1 /; ar; ~, - y f „~ / '~rYJ .!• i~ y ~. bfaidw~'l~ ~~p'~ ~fi ..~~:~.~ ~j`~{. ~~l l_.. a I ~ f ~E ~ u ~ / i. ~ I t 1- fir ~, .~ ' :, .f ~ ~ 9°e~i _~ i,,~e.,.--` dY„'~~ ~~F.s~~ J i~- ~ _o-. `~ ~,.`i.' ~,~~e..4_ ~ ~ .'~~ sue. ~~ ,. .. .. ~~ r E , ~ e..~.. j `~~. 1_ jy /~ ~ ~ f f_t - /.~ ~~-i'%v--~~- ~~-~-~`'?,:;~' (fat„ " '""'~''` ~..,.~~fF '°~`9QO^~ ~ 1~ /~,'~'~4...a..._- ~ ~ %~ ~. T ~.' _._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. „~i ~y~~-tom ~ . ~'~' °~`'~ ~ ,r t, ~, y;~ 9 ,~. ~ ~' 3~~ r ~? E ~ 1..~~.~~ i ~ ©~ 1 Lam. ~.~ _~ ~ ` r ~: { yy~ < ,~ ~ 1 1 ~ 7 "~ ~ 66 p -r' y ~,~,: ,,y ,~= ~~ ,.~;( ,~ ;~.%f~, frig ~_ _~;_ ~ ~p.~ ~~ ,± ~- d t ~. _ t, ~ <<; ~ .~~-~~-E - ~ ~. 1 ~;~-,~ i~ _ / > `-- ~+ r ~ i y' ! / ~ f f ~ / ~_ l"7 q r ~p~,,.~'*;3,~ j ~ 'f i`~ .r `(„(~~~-"(,fem.-._~ (+~ °~r`i./; i ~ f 4 ` ii 1 ~ ~,~~F~l ~.~~ i ~ ~ f ~ pl' ~~ y ~~~/ ~ ~ 1/~1,.4 I 1. .~, / ,~ ~~ ~~( ~ ~ .. 1 ~~ j` ~ _ / ~ !4 ~,. ~ c. ,° E f. a <<- Jim LONG TEL N0.409 696 2133 November ! 6.1994 Nov 16,94 1349 P.O1 PlanniAg and 1~aning Commiaeion City of College Station P. 0. Bo= 9960 CvUege Station TX 77842 Subject: Replat o[ Southwood. Yalley 24 A, Tract B, Block 55 Caae 9-4-x39. !a May orf this year when Thomas 8rothars requested a ~onin$ change an the came property, we objected with the following oom manta: 11?e are s~carefy aGa~~p~,rrlted that Thomas Bwthe~s rt'Quested the su6~1 ~~- chime. They bailt at~ray raf' the homes ~n ohr ne~hb~ar'hoad. They .~orld t~esehomes with a ~a~ue lased as [he fsct ~~rt the sub/e~ pr~petty fs to~edl~r sl~lBlJt~lly o`R~lll~s, III al'lhe otfmr bullavrs.~ald~mpertles;fn #h8 Aelg~darhao~O bested cY' ~ same assumptlrtt~ hrnw that a/! ~-a~ ~er~opierlfes have ,ho+~r~ sold, Thomas B~vlhers have negt~ested lhst ~ s!o Qba~e' he mods that wil/ r+ed~ tfie vd~ a~` rl~e ~m~rtied 11~y sold oar zlae~astfew years ~e donor tdtl~ tlifs~sc~b! and ive- p~ei~tkao yoz- to de~,y the ~Qr~st 1?ar the tool~T ~tttge. Nothing bas really changed. Thomas 8rotners are stll! trying to build high density housing in our neighborhood and we still object, There are fait tov mafly lot$ on the FSat, Why w®re ae in the neighborhood not notified of this hearing~ And why aren't. -the ounceras of property owners in the neighborhood represented by the Bnglneerlna Staff In their evaluation of this klad of request? Slnoerely, 1~-r++~s k. Le ~bid~ S. Long James H. & Bd1th S. Long 29 i 4 Aztec Court College Station TX ~7~84~ 11/16/9 16:15 $~09 8~5 5164 TAMU LIBERAL ART C~j001 6?t x transmittal memo 7 Post-3t"' brand fa # of pa g es Te 7 ~ + fiD171Q.rj ~ j / From.? ~iVfi 1C' ~~~ ~ti jj ~~ Coa 1. [ mod.. t ( Co. r Depr;pl~ A+n ~ ~ Ni ,t QQ ~~ rr~tt Phonc H $`cS~ ~7 S T 1 ~ ( l FaY ~ ~ 6 " J `i' rd ~j Fa f~ November 16, 1994 MEMORANDUM ', TO: Natalie- Thomas, Coordinator, Planning and Zoning Board City Hall FROM: Steve Rholes ~ SiTBJECT: Replat Request Southwood Malley 24A. Tract B, Diock 55 I am writin,~ to protest the replat of the property mentioned above that is being requested by Thomas Properties. I am unhappy about this action first because there was insufficient notification by mail of properly owners within 200 feet of the property in question- The Staff Report mentions that only 2 owners of property within 200 feet of the property in question were mailed out. -There are many more property owners within 200 feet. I am one of them. In fact, I am the owner of the property closest to the property in question.. I think the pro~oscd hearing should be rescheduled co allow me more time tastudy the issues and`marshall support against this action'among other affected parties... 1 ~ Second, a hearing regarding the rezoning of this property for multifamily dwelling (duplexes} was held recently and the rezoning was strongly opposed by property owners in the area and soundly defeated by the board. This replat is merely a backdoor effort to accomplished the same goal of ultra-high density occupancy on the land in question. It will have ttte same negative effects on property values the rezoning would have had. Please da not approve the requested replat. Let's use the land in question as it was ariginallyintended, as those of us who bought property adjacenthad expected we could count on. I will attend the Thursday meeting and oppose this plan, but I know others who cannot due to insuiioient notification.. Please bear this in mind a_s you considerthis replat. Sincerely, Steve Rholes 2905 Aztec Ct. 11/.17/94 14:08 $ 0001 . ~ V D r~-y-~ ~r ~ L 7r l ~ q ~ ~~.1 ` YLO 1vr- ~.-:S l l N[, n r~,~w~j ~ ~ I•~ i •4' ~ •s Cr ~~~ S ~ (:o it~~ s ~~`''OLt P.O~~aY q4~0 ~r'~ ! ~ / J .~~ 1 ' + , r Jv` ~ - ~~i2;~ s ; r~ ti0 D S ~ D ~"- ~ Il r' ~r• V tom. ~~"~ v 5, y~ ~, 'j i November 17, 1994 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission: I am against Thomas Properties .proposal to divide the 3.94 acre into 15 single family plots. The .new .,property will represent high density housing in comparison to the newly developed neighborhoods in the surrounding areas.. If 151ots are ..:placed in the 3.94 acres, the property valves will be lowered for those houses recently built. The houses will be smaller , parking will cause. Please do not permit the replat .procedure. Thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns. Sincerely, ~e. ~~ Kathy C. rganac 702 Encnas Place College Station, TX 77845 11~17i94 09:13 a 409 873 2013 228 TMPR EN6R & OPER P.01 280~6 N. Pueblo Crt. .College Station, IX 7G84.S Noverrther 1G, 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission C/O`tVatalie Thomas, Plannn Techn' ' ICI g tcian City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College. Station, 7X 77842 Dear Planntng and Zoning Commission: ~ As concerned College Station homeowners, my wife and. !wanted to express. vur strong ~ Qpposiuon to the. proposed divisitm of the 3.94 acre plat (into 1.5 single family. lots} on the west side of the Mormon church that has been requested by 77tomas Properties. We feel that dividing .this small acreage. into l.S lots represents high density housing. 1`ollowing the city council decision tv not perntlt re.-zr~ning of the propcrry to allt~w duple~res and rental property, we had felt that the problem of that property being a high density housing area bud been solved. However, wiah this large. number of tots, we feel that many of our original concerns arc. still just~fled, My w~je and I are quite.. pleased with our neigtehnrhvvd (as it currently exists} and the quietness of it. The Property ..under question is directly behind our house, and if the. proposed housing division occurs, we are concerned that thF area will became. highly congested and will ruin the. quiet, peaceful atmosphere. our neighborhood currently possesses. While we do not mind new neighbors, we cenatnty do mind having. a eong~ested, high: traffic {because of the density}, and noisy community behind our home that will.• 1}potentially decrease the value. of our' home. and properly, and 2} will with all certainty decreuse7he enjoyment we frnd in our currently tranquil backyard and home. Thank you for your help and attention tv this matter! Sincere! , ~ ~~ G~ i~~ Mike and Lisa Rowe. 11/16/94 20:25 $409784 3737 GS PARKS & REC ~~~ tiNKNOWN 0 002/002 Project Sponsor/Nominator -2- November 14, 1994 If you would like additional information,. please contact Ms. Eloise Lundgren, Director of Public Information, at (512) 305-9137, we anticipate the next call for nominations will be issued in December 1995. Thank you for participating in the Statewide ~ansportation Enhancement Program. We wish the best of luck to you and to all other project nominators and sponsors. i II Sincerely I `_ Wm. G Burnett, P.E. Executive Director i ~, ICI I • TO: Ms. Natalie Thomas Planning Technician City of College Station FROM: Helen Lee 2808 Pueblo Ct. North f DATE: November 17, 1994 -SUBJECT: ` I 3.94 acre plat oh Welsh Ave. I am writing. today to voice my opposition to the proposed replatting of the above mentioned acreage: ' l believe that the proposal of 15 single family lots represents high density housing and will be detrimental to the property values of neighboring homes. The lack of advanced notification is very disappointing. The city of Bryan sends out '; notification letters to neighboring property owners when such a meeting is scheduled. Your failure to notify property owners of this meeting smacks of back loom, good ole boy politics and I hope you will reconsider the manner in which you j i I j { carry out city business on behalf of its citizens. __ -__ ~•, CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I `~ PLANNING DIVISION. POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409) 764-3570 MEMORANDUM TO: The Planning and Zoning .Commission FROM: Veronica Morgan, Asst. City Engineer DATE: January 26, 1995 RE; REPEAT OF TRACT "B", BLOCK 55, SOUTHWOOD VALLEY -SECTION 24A This replat is before the Commission to relocate a public utility easement. This plat, as you will recall, came before the Commission in October of 1994 and was approved by Council in December of 1994: After final design of their utilities, it became apparent that the utility ease)ent between lots 8 and 9 would have to be relocated. The only item changed on this plat from the ane considered late last year is the easement location. Staff recommends approval of the plat as shown. `~ °~~~ From: Veronica Morgan To: SVOLK Date: 10/2/96 1:56pm ~ .Subject: Southwood Valley 24A -Reply i talked with Carey smith, he wanted to know if they could delete the detention pond because we were considering "waiving any drainage analysis for projects less than 5 acres". i told him no, that hasnt been adopted yet and they had 3 optoins: 1. go with the way it has been approved 2. go back to an engineer and. see if they did the analysis downstream to the primary if they could "get rid of the pond" or 3. wait until the new drainage regulations are adopted (timeframe unknown) Carey seemed to think they would go with it they way it is, »> Shirley Volk 09/30/96 11:42am »> Carey Smith of Texcon called me and wanted to come in and talk about detention in this subdivision the Thomas Bros. are doing (along Welsh near Deacon). Ltold him Pm not the person to talk to about drainage, but I would check and have the person who is assigned to that case call him to set up an appointment. His number is 778-1355. I know Jerry has been assigned to this project as the inspector.. That's about all I know about it. Will you update me when this has been done so I can check it off my list. Thanks. CC: shomeyer,klaza o~ From: Veronica Morgan 9~ a~j To: City of College Stahon.City Hall(SHomeyer, SSSmrt.., Date: 5/21/96 11:36am Subject: Charles Thomas -Reply $400. ithas watersewer, streets and storm drainage »> Shirley Volk 05/21/96 09:52am »> Charles has a question as to how much his DDP will be for the little one street subdivision off Welsh near Deacon.. I didn't know if it will be $100 or $400. Please let me know. Thanks. ~. 4 ~GI ~a Regular Item Consent Item - Statutory Item Item Submitted By: Veronica J.B. Morgan, Asst. City Engineer For Council Meeting Of: February 23, 1995 Director Approval: Executive,Member Approval: =r3 -rs <... ........... ............................~.... ... r \ ..n ~..... r.. r........................ .............................v.....:..... v. .:..: •.~::::+i..iiii .,v,'•tm..vv . . +•~: vim. ~ r r... r..M1 .x... .n....n...." r.::::. M1iYV.:}i~v v. ~r...i."':. 4 w::::;; .•snw:..:... tr......n..x::: ri.:rysx~:::: x::: w :::::::::::::.~::::::::::::::::.w:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::•: ::•::: n.......: :-:::::::::::.~.. ... r.... .......... v..:... \.v.:4:v.'' .riiiiiiiiii. ~ G~ Ends Statements /Strategic Issues: 3. Health and Public Safety ~N ~h3', Item: Consideration of a Final Plat (Replat) for Southwood Valley Section 24A, located on the west.. side c~ of Welsh Avenue just north of theDeacon intersection..{94-239a} Item Summary: This final plat was before the Council in December 1994, at which time the plat was approved.. Since that time, the applicant has realigned a sewerline and with this plat is relocating;the public utility easement between lots 8 and 9 to allow for this realignment. Financial Summary:.. N/A Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the final plat. City Attorney Recommendation: N/A Council Action Desired: Approve or deny the final plat. Supporting Materials: 1 . Location Map 2. Staff Memo 3. P&Z Minutes 4. Final Plat Planning Division City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842-9960. RE: Proposed Replat of Southwood Valley 24 A, Tract B To the Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission I would like to go on record as opposing the proposed replat of the above mentioned lot. I am a Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day .Saints, whose property is located immediately to the south of this lot. My objections are fundamentally the same now as they were less than 6 months ago, when Thomas Properties asked for a rezoning ofthis lot from R-1 Single Family Residential to R-2 Duplexes. At that time, I both wrote to present my objections and restated them in the Public Hearing held on May 19 (a copy of the letter I wrote in May is attached). My objections are as follows:. 1. The proposed replat, in my view, is still more in accordance with the duplex. plan. than it is with the concept of single family dwellings. While the proposal calls for 15 "single family" residences, by their size they will be at best what I might call half a duplex, or a "monoplex".: This goes completely against the spirit of what all the members of the Planning .and Zoning Commission -last May agreed was appropriate for this lot, given how the surrounding area had been developed. ' 2. The StaffReport describes-the zoning and land use of the areas to the immediate north and south, but fails to take into account the areas that have been developed to the east and west: both of these are comprised of medium-large (over 2;000) sq. foot homes standing on large lots. 3. Local Government Cade §212.015, paragraph (c) refers to "written instruments signed by owners of at least 20% of the area of the lots or land-immediately adjoining the area covered by the proposed replat, and extending 200 feet from that area, but within the original subdivision". However, nobody living. on either Aztec (adjoining to the. west) or on Pueblo (adjoining to the east) received notification of the proposed replat or the public hearing. 4. With such small dwellings proposed for the development, we are concerned-how they will be occupied. Specifically, we are concerned that. they will become .student housing, instead of true single family dwellings. This. will .entail a high level of traffic in an area that otherwise has a high concentration of children walking and biking to school and to the Church for after school activities. 5. There is .the definite possibility that our parking lot will be used as overflow parking for the. properties to be built. This would be an especial problem on weekends, when we hold. our worship services, and in the evenings when there are activities for youth and adults going on nearly every day of the week. 6. There is also the potential of safety and maintenance problems for us as a Church, if in fact the property becomes primarily student housing,. due to the more transient nature of such housing: 7. From the plans, it is uncertain what type of fence, if any, will be placed between the proposed single family dwellings and the Church's property. Our concern is that if there is no fence, or a low chain-link fence, people will use the Church parking lot and simply climb over the fence into their backyard. We would oppose anything less than a 6 foot fence, preferably of wooden plank constuction. Also of concern about the fence, is the detention area to built on lot 10. Will this area be fenced of to prevent children getting into it, and who will. be responsible for maintaining both its appearance and safety? We would like. to see it fenced. I would like to thank you for the careful consideration that .you gave to our concerns,. and to those of all the neighbors, when rezoning this lot was considered last May. I would like to make it clear that the Church is not opposed to any development of the said lot, only that we care about the type and nature of any development. After all, the developer does not have to live with their project as neighbors for the next 20 years or more; we: do. Sincerely avid M. Ellis Bishop cc: C. Richard Shumway, President, College Station Stake