Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneousqtr i ~e~/ l~ 6 _. ~_ _ _ _ - c:-~ _ __ -- _ -- - _- __ -~-• - - c~ 1-:__ ___ _ . i / __ -- .. fir-- ~ _fS ___- ..~-- ~C~. . _-._--e _L`S~G1 .._._G~ S_ _ ~~~ ~%Y~ _~* - _._.._ _ . ~l __ _ .•~ ,, ~ - __ __- ___ _ _ `~- ~ - - ~ cl rGt L'~ lam:-~~tii ~-~~ Uci / ~ ~ //~ _~ _. _ - - _ _ _. _ _ b--__ `-=.L..~~ r ~__._.~~.rt_lc-[pf._- -:.~t~_ ~2~_ ~c ~°~z -_ ~- ~2_., 5`'Ll~1., ~~'1CCf ._Q-L'7t~~ _ ° Cs}s'J=- ~ fit.„_ _.-._/!''~. ~.5._ ~!.5-~---_7 t~e~`Cr ., _ __ _ ._ /-/ __ __. --_ - ~-~, "`-~C. -Z_ _ Dom-- . - ~ ?'~ - J C ~ 1,:-~ - ~= ~ C~ ~ti~~~~ ~ .~- ~h"-z_ c' L• ~~ ~7r ~z ! tsa..z.c-- . n ` ~ / - .~. '- ~L. ~C%c, ~-. ~~ L~- 'r!G( -c, C~~ i zziG--~~ C,cr~~C~ L~,~- //~yi~-zt_i rC-r Y~ < Q ` /~] (/ ~~ ~ / ,~_ /n ,__ __ ~ n ._ ~ d f - ~ ~~ ~ ~« _ __ ____ _ ->. --- -_ . __ ~l:~c1~_YVL- ~ ~__ vJ ~yC'___~U~' ~^~1 - -G2~-~{'`-=1ti- _ ~ ~ f t'-G-ti r. _ __ ._ . .- _ L.. ~~--~ S'e ~ G3_-? ~l _ - _ Zb _ _ G,~-~.__.. _ ~?vC Y`' ~.J'e/-~ -- _ /l a_~~ - - _ _ _ . _ ~~ __ ~ _ _ j 9 ~_ ~ - S cis c` ~~~ ~ • ~ ~~ iS __._ '~. ^° __~f~L-?----~~-~''~... i--V~^-~- -.~`~=U. ..L~!c. '7=-.'~-d~~ ~z_~(~ G-~_- _V_G_~.____. G<f~-..,/.._'__: {~_ r ~~ ~^ ^ L~~c.-¢ - -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ _ . ----~ -- /' %~ p -- s?<_tG.~ J __ ~l~- .. ~""z' __521 / _ _ ! `-~-z~ _ ~4_~'`-~ ! U '" _---- - ~~~ -~-~~~ - j-=__~ _-_ _ _ _ .__ ----- --___ __ _- January 19, 1996 Dear Neighbors, On January 15, 1996 a number of residents of Edelweiss Estates met with officials from the City of College: Station, Mr. Steve Arden (the developer of Edelweiss Estates) and Ivlr. Joe Courtney (the developer of the land immediately east of Edelweiss estates) to discuss the proposed rezoning of the land immediately east of Edelweiss Estates. The following is a synopsis of the meeting. City of College Station The city is presently looking at three alternatives • a connection between the two subdivisions (i.e. using Aster and Hasselt) • no connection between the two subdivisions (i.e. block off Aster and Hasselt) • using the Arnold Street right of way (presently a proposed bike path) as a collector street They also informed us that if the proposed subdivision had one access point (off of Graham Rd.) that this would be adequate for the planning department. In addition, while both the police and fire departments would like to see a connection between the neighborhoods they are willing to accept the no connection scenario. The city's recommendation on the above proposals will be ready by January 26, 1996 -- in time for the February 1, 1996 planning and zoning commission meeting where this proposed zoning change will be discussed again. Joe Courtney (Developer of proposed site) Mr. Courtney indicated that he: • does not want to have a connection between the two subdivisions • would be willing to put up a wood fence at the back of his property immediately adjacent to Edelweiss estate and provide landscaping behind this fence • would limit the size of any houses built immediately adjacent to the Edelweiss Subdivision to one story (as opposed to two stories that maybe built in the R-2 and R-lA zones) • would not build any homes in the Rl-A section until 1) the new Schaffer Road is fmished 2) Aster and Hasselt are blocked off ,and 3) the associated landscaping is done What the neighbors in Edelweiss Estates need to do: • determine what the residents of Hasselt and Aster Drive (and anyone else) feels about the plan • if we agree - determine what type of landscaping would be required (any landscape architects out there?) - determine how we want the abandoned sections of Schaffer Road (at Aster and Hasselt) to look (i.e. paved, gravel, alley way connecting Aster and Hasselt ....) - make sure the drainage considerations are taken care of (i.e. do we want an open culvert?) - any other concerns? • if we do not - what course of action should we follow. - it is also important to note that the proposed development immediately east of Edelweiss Estates can be classified as Rl because the 50' x 100' lots meet the Rl minimum lot size specifications (i.e. it doesn't really matter what the zoning change is -- the end result is smaller houses) If you would like further information on this issue I encourage you to talk to one of your neighbors who we;re at the meeting. Scott Atkinson 701 Aster rrRobert Lemon ~~d Back 706 Hasselt marry Rilett Stephen Chambers 708 Hasselt ~iene Zdziarski 721 Aster 696-8174 718 Aster 696-1960 ~r f ~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 720 Hasselt 694-2603 We are proposing that we have a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed rezoning on Thursday, January 25 at approximately 7:00 p.m. We will have copies of the developers plans and we hope to have copies of the; City of College Station's recommendations as well. If you would like to attend the meeting (and have any ideas on where it can be held) please contact one of the neighbors listed above. Thank you. 696-5706 694-2753 694-8660 From: Jim Callaway To: svolk Date: 6/10/96 4:03pm Subject: Mayor's concern re: R-2 hearing. I talked to Lynn this afternoon. Sheds concerned that the Council attendance is going to be a problem for the Courtney rezoning. It ]looks like there may be just four members present. I suggested that we do the following: Let Courtney know what's happening re: attendance. Recommend to Courtney that he let us hold the hearing but delay action (in fact, he should request this). Announce to the audience that the hearing will be held but that action on the ordinance will be taken at the next meeting. Also announce to the audience that they will be given an opportunity to speak at the meeting when the ordinance is considered. Courtney's folks should say very little, perhaps saying: "We thank the Council for the opportunity to speak but we would prefer to address our remarks to the full Council at the next meeting." This is the best way I can think of to handle the situation. We've done a pretty good job of working with Joe and I want to minimise the time delay resulting from the Council absences. I want to avoid having to go through the notice process again. Let me know if you have a better idea. Let me know what Joe wants to do and PIl update Lynn and Skip. CC: snoe ~ ~ v ~~ 9.s ® ``~ a r~`~ ~~ ~~ /~~ ~~~~ 9E «z ~~~: .~ From: Jim Callaway To: svolk Date: 6/10/96 4:03pm Subject: Mayor's concern re: R-2 hearing. I talked to Lynn this afternoon. She is concerned that the Council attendance is going to be a problem for the Courtney rezoning. It looks like there may be just four members present. I suggested that we do the following: Let Courtney know what's happening re: attendance. Recommend to Courtney that he let us hold the hearing but delay action (in fact, he should request this). Announce to the audience that the hearing will be held but that action on the ordinance will be taken at the next meeting. Also announce to the audience that they will be given an opportunity to speak at the meeting when the ordinance is considered. Courtney's folks should say very little, perhaps saying: "We thank the Council for the opportunity to speak but we would prefer to address our remarks to the full Council at the next meeting." This is the best way I can think of to handle the situation. We've done a pretty good job of working with Joe and I want to minimise the time delay resulting from the Council absences. I want to avoid having to go through the notice process again. Let me know if you have a better idea. Let me know what Joe wants to do and Pll update Lynn and Skip. CC: snoe ]$ 3 S ~~ m1 J ~ ~ ~ ~~.~! ~ t,' ~ r. ~. a ~ z t _ _ __ ,~-~ - ~ _..~.,o ~ ~~- _~~ i • v r P G ' ~ ;~ ^ _ ~ ~ ~s..~ ~ i ~°~~ ' ' "..~. ~ ~ cam. ~ ~~a..,. ,~ ': t C~) I ~+ ~ 1 P n _ f ~ ~ ,~ ' ~ d - r- .- 3 C. ~ ~' _ _ a. ® ; ~ r ~ €~- ~ ~~ ;`- ~ ~a ___ ..... . ...................... ...... . ____ a r ~-.,., ~ r a ~. s `F ~ _ P °• a ` i ~ ~,..,,=~°~g E,~ r` . ~- E ,~.. a...n- ! t' s u°~` ~ ~; ~ v ~. P~ ~ f ~ , ~ ~ , ~ r ~ = jf ~ d - .~~ ~~: ~ A '~ w, z ;~ r ~ .®. tl ~?`~ ~. i ,_ r ~ f ?-~ € d ~ „ n ~ 7 ~ ' ~ n ~ ,~ ~ -~' ~ -' ~~. E __ r Y __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ a.~ ..:2a_ ,~.~. _ _. _ __ ~~m _ ~ ~-; ® ~ ~~ {@ t ~ s s .~.. ,. 4s,_ . [ v,.~ e a ~ ~ e _ ., %1 ~ ~p? ,~ ,; U, ~ `.l ..U '~.,.-- .r, -~ ~ `" ; ~ ' ~ ~.r ~,' ~ /a~.~?~.,~ fit( .L.®..~ ~, • `E.~ ~; L~'4.La r 'wr g..~ ~ r; ~ ~{ 111_. e, f ~ t ~, 3 wr __ ~`~ ~~ a :' ~ `.1 r ,. 11 °) s ~" v' ~, ,• _~o_ +~'t< ~ t .. , =3 ~ +^ ~~ i ~ > w `,tl :,_ k~ ~_ .v5 ~` b!•-~ s ~~' a.r.~~« v ^ ` °"& o-'~o,.,..,.,a.J Z 4~s,t`~.~ ~., ~"o,,,m.. ,.._ 9 6?~ '~ J ,~ n f%' _.... ~.-. ,~; `°°'°' ~~t~;-~,,...~ '~_~i'~~.f~~'-- ~~.°~a.1~`..e ,. ,'r :'' ~..,1`°.9g~.~~ k.~,i~`'i~-k_~ ~"~r~ ~y ~ ~ •° ~°~ A ~ ' ~ ~' ,~.,,. C j ~ ~ .` _, ,d~ ~ ,? ~~ _ ^ ~ rye h ~. ,~ ~~ j ~ `~ _. :. _;. .,. ._~ _' FGA~ S 6+' V ' ~ r ..~ ~ e . ~, ~y '+„_,.~ f a ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. _ ~ rt V z ,~. • ,,~ _.: :.~ .. -, ~_ , .~~_ I n _. __ __ __ _ __ ___ __ __ _- pIZEDEVELOpMENT MEETING The purpose of a predevelopment meeting is to meet the City Staff that will be involved with your development and identify general issues that need further analysis. Along with the discussion of these major issues, Staff will talk about the development ~?rocess, distribute necessary information and discuss what permits will be required for your particular development. This meeting is in no way a complete review of your project. Staff will perf=orm a formal thorough review once the minimum requiremerns are submitted for your particular development. Date of Meeting: ~ ~~ ~~ Applicant(s)~~~~~ c~..r ~~tia-- // ~~ ~?~~' lr~~C~ ,,~ ;~ City stafF present: ~~~~%e-~.(. , y ~d J i `~ ~~ Proposal: Lj(~ Miscellaneous: Land Use: 1 ~--e~- ~ ' d ' 4 .~ ~ a S V Zoning : ~.. ~~ 1,-C~1^ ~ ~~ c~``~-~ ° ~` E ~~'~- ~ ~ '' ~~ ~ e C~~l~ Z > ~Z.a~ ~ ~~ ~~'~ ~ '~ ecia zonin district information: c~~..~ ~'" p g ~~ , sub ivisi lattin Issues: ~-~ T-Fare flan/street I slues: , (~~~'~- ~ ~.-~~ (~,~~ Driveway Access: ' Parkland/~areenways Dedication: Parks & Recreation Board Consideration: rx , i .~ ~ L~/~-~-ri Drainage Issues: ~~~~` ~~,, ..~ C-~ G ~` f? Y~ .. Utlllty I55Ue5: Water Availability/Capacity: ~-~y~~~ ~~ ~~~~ Sanitary Sewer Availability/Capacity: Impact Fees: Electrical Fire Hydrant MiSCellaneou5: ~q~l F ~ ~a5~r~c~ . ~. LandSCaping/Street5cape: DumpSter Location: Signs: Screening/Bu~FFering: Cr~~tx~z r,~"~•_f ~~'~ ~w.~- ~ ~s7e~Go , Variance Rec~ue5t5: Permits required for this development: Development Permit Building Permit Conditional Use Permit TxDOT Driveway Permit for work in State ROW TxDOT Utility Permit for work in State ROW Special Review required by: Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board Northgate Revitalization Committee Parks and Recreation Board Planning and Zoning Commission City Council Information provided: Zoning Ordinance Subdivision Regulations Specifications for Street Construction Drainage Policy & Design Standards CS Building Regulations (Local Amendments to the Buildin~i Code) dire Department Construction & Development Guide Driveway Access Location & Design Policy Water & Sewer Specification Manual CS Business Center Covenants & Restrictions Guide to Building & Development Development Resource Guide __ _._~ s a C .~ e Fi r '` ~~ ~` ~. . ~. ~- c d' ~ , ~ _~__, -~ ~, ~__ - ~~_ -- _, ~,~ ,=~; -=~ z _' c~ _-~ ~a --' ` =- 1 `~_ ~- ,_ Vim. ~~ J_-~ ~ c~ ~~ (~~ ^U ~_-_ I~ y ~~ J ~'~t^> ~ ~ 1 `',~ .,~ ' __ ~~ ~~ i -~ ;~ ~ R ~~ =- ~- ~) ~ _r ~~~~'~j }~~ F ~~~y~~`.~a.'ts.~y?~~.~.~»~~ ~~ 7 ~,~,. ~~~~ ` ,~ ,, .. ~;:, ~-. . ~ ~. ,~ gam-.- F~ .. 1 .i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ' n, .i( ~~ {: ~i ~~ ~I ~ F i ~ ' ~f. ~ ~''. : ~ ~~ ~~'! i~ _ I J 1 i3 ".-:i ~~ !~ I rc F~ . ,, ` ~~ ~ .., ,,, ~~ ~~ .A O ~'' j' A ~9~~ ;- F ;, ,p '~r-`, d ~~,_ y~\~ ~~„~O ~a ~~ ,~a~~~ ~~~ .. ~. _L. ~~ ~~ m ®~ d U r is ~~ PREDEVELOPMENT MEETING ~' ~' SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 ;~ ,{~ ,y,~. ~~ ~,, ~`,- - ATTENDEES: Joe Courtney, Horace Shaffer, Don Garrett, Earl Havel Kent Laza, Sabine Kuenzel, Ed Hard, Natalie Thomas & Shirley Volk ,. ~i ,' / _. ~ ,-. , , v f J _ .~ ~ .n , ~! Subject: Rezoning of the Shaffer property located along the north side of Graham Road, and the eastern side of Shaffer Road (a gravel road) from A-O to R-2 On 8/30 the City received a rezoning request from Horace Shaffer via Earl Havel to rezone apx. 37 acres out of a 50 acre tract from A-0 to R-2. On 9/11 Jane called a staff only development review meeting to address some of the problems associated with the request -specific example: lack of adequate access for this proposal due to the existing condition of Shaffer Road, which is gravel. It was also pointed out that it would be helpful to know what was being planned for the area to the north of the creek on the remainder of the 50 acres, since that area abuts Arnold Road, and the likelihood that development of that remaining property to support the dedication and building of Arnold Road is slim. We set up the meeting with the developer, and Sabine explained that staff would not be able to support the request because .existing access would not support the proposed development. The developer objected to having to build all of Shaffer Road alone, without the adjacent properties having to contribute, even though. Ed had explained that the density of R-2 zoning would require a 39 foot street to carry the trips per day generated. The developer then proposed to design the project with no access to Shaffer, and staff agreed that would be acceptable and he would not have to build Shaffer, and could be made a condition of the zoning. When the property to the. north of the creek was discussed, development of Arnold Road was also discussed. The developer did not want to dedicate all of Arnold Road and then build it also. Discussion followed about whether there is ample right-of-way for Arnold Road now, or if all of the required ROW would have to come from this property, whether part of Shaffer Road as it exists could be abandoned and reconfigured to be located at least partially within the R-2 development being discussed; what platting will be required, how rights-of-way will be handled, whether or not the City will be in a position to assume some financial responsibility for an "affordable housing" development, as well as the possibility of entering into some kind of development agreement.with the developer. At or near the end of the meeting, the following was decided: 1. The current request would be withdrawn by the applicant, pending answers to certain questions. (The applicant will attempt to meet the September 27th deadline.) 2. When a request is resubmitted, staff will be waiving some of the fees involved due to the timing of the response of staff to this request. 3. Garrett Engineering is to determine if Arnold Road is a part of the Shaffer property. 4. Staff stated that the developer probably won't be required to build Arnold Road if no access to his development is taken to it. 5. Staff would be discussing and coming to some kind of decision regarding the relocation (re-routing) of Shaffer Road, OR what would be required if no access it taken to Shaffer Road. 6. Staff will determine if Arnold Road is not actually there (upon a check of the records), and when the platting of the property comes in, if the developer doesn't take access to Arnold Road, will the developer still have to dedicate the right-of-way? build it? Will all of it have to come from Mr. Shaffer's property? Could the developer dedicate it and then not have to build it? 7. Staff agreed to oversized participation for the improvement of Schaffer Road. The developer would like to meet the deadline on September 27th, which is only 14 days (2 weeks) from this date, so I would suggest that staff have another predevelopment staff only meeting to address some of the concerns raised during yesterday's meeting. I will be having a meeting scheduled for Tuesday a.m. to discuss this. ~ r ~~ _ ., ~- ~~~~~ ~ ~ / ~ c,: __ ~p ;_ _ _ _ ~ ., { us' ~~ , n mot, (~~~~ ` !`~ '~} ~. ~~ ~ "~ 1a,P°ey~~l " ~ ~~`~„'j~ ' ~ J ~ ~'- ~ '~~.®r f_ 9 ~9...~ ~'~~ r~~ °~1r~~:L`I/`.G/// s/ ~ L.d ~ ^~~ f ~f. . ~ ~r . ; R ~,.sL't'~ 1. _.. _.. ~ `L~~ ~'~'~,~L°I G`V~ ~ { ~ l~'~.'~~~~/'°~-;: p " ~:''0r?e-' l ~ E ~... ~ P G/ °`' ii~°,oti-~.~° ~a"' `"'.s;;d ~L`~`''~'~?l/'"i ~~2 -,'.. c/~~~! ~~ ..,, a ~- _ ," ~,., ,. >. ~ ~ .~ _, ~~ -~ .~ (~ _ y~ ~°,) / `~: \ ~- _, ~. , //] //( .._" r a g s 1/ e ~ m,-- ra- ~ . ,. ~V Cl.~--; s ~~~ f~~ ~ ~ ~ 'l.s~`-'~..m-- ~, ~°t ~`~~:>M~-"~°`°~._ a`~l.^ ~ r.~~~-"Q°~..~~f t° v `~r~~'/~ $.r~adr;A`•~ y ~j i~ oy . . ; ~ 1 ~-~.. `-"~~ ~ F . - _ _ -~-- b / ., 1 YYYJJI e: ny % d ~~ ~ ~1 ~ s W ~"' o ~ ~ ~ y I .,; ~f/'' g /~ ~-° ra r. ., ~{ .a1 ~~ r,~ ~~ ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ \s ~ ~a ~ i ` ~,~ b ~~~ o. .~- ~i .~r~ v ~'~ ~; ., ~~~ ~ r ~/ . ' 9 ~~ ~~.. ~ ~. ~ 1 <-. '~~' I ~ , . ~. ~ ,e~ ~ r a ~'- l f C / ~ r 0 ~~ b I ~' ,. ~ /// n a r 1 t i p e F l-'C. ~ die ^°"i" `~ ' 1~ ,~• /~` ' ~) ~', /t`'~r~"- l`'i'~`.~.s~ f is ~u~ ,''$` ~; k ~ ~C~/ ,./ ,%,~ ~n ~ I ; ' 4@,~ /' "c ~' ~/E,v ~~~°°.~ t. ja i'~.fi~t~ ¢ y ..~. ~ `~~ ~ L/k ;~ ' ~r " '}ff"' ~- s?,rr ~y , .. e ~, a ~' ~ ~ .Z ~ .~ ~ °. h 1~i~~. f,~~- L~C {....._ ~..{'~„r:.{f t i~~.+~° has- ( L C-~, ~) ~vt_ C~~. I.-+`~` ~'~ ~~ `p. ~ , s ~` ~_ ] ( ~,,~~~, F, f~~` ~ ~~ = a ` f "as 3 G G"''" ,~ ,. s ~ ~ 71 ~ ~ i ~ ~ q // / tP P ~~ / `~ ~~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~r ,. N -°..~" ° 1 r a-- ~, ~ . ~, , 1 -; - ^ ,, ~ ~ ~, .~,' '~ e 6 G $.~ ~~ _,~ r / ~~~ -_ ~_ 1 ~- - =a 1 i f~ . „ ~ a , ,, 111 ~f+ 1. y / ` ~ ____ __. _..... f ~ ~; f% ;; 4~ . F < to -s' '' ~.,,- -,~'~ ,~ ,i „' _. ~~~m.~!~i ..s~l.~~'7'd...l r Z`ts~..~~ ~ ~~r~ `~_.~'~. t.~-~f~.~~~..e1 ~-~~C~...i~. .~/' F~~~ M, J q. e ~ :> ..~ ~v.J'i / 'lam ~y sy s~/ ~ / ~ ~ ~~ i _, ~~ %' ~~ p ___~_, / ~ F ~ ' / t ~f ul+ IV .~% 1... -_ ~ ~ ~ s. r y y}/', /~~ {7 - kkk J ( f .jj//''//ff GG~ // ~ / ~ i ~~"v1„J'L, ~` yq„G~~ e9t`y~L ~~/` ~ l.% ~'; r'yfr~. ~.~.% '~` t/i'~ ~,. `~'` ~l.F'~/4 %i.~~. ~ ~~ !~ __ _ ___ __ __ ./` ~~ ,- !f ` ~ ,~ /~ _ ~ ~, r ~ti (.%1 _ _ ~. _. , i ~'~~ `.-~` ~i~'j ~~°~~ _I~' ,;~'~~ ~_ ,tom-~-' "~'~ ~ ~-T~ ~ ~~ ~, ^~.. ,, i~~ c;/ ~~~,n~~ i.' ~' ~,®! ~~ , j, qJ~_..a ~ ,J BLS !~;t f` ya~,.i-'C~ `j~C'.'L;,, !{;%' r ,,. f.W/,~~~i fr~. r L ~,, v e ~~ ~e ..i~+1. \. :l J ! gf4f f\.\ ~`a~\l\?a~\~v~\~~\: ~. .:.f.!.!.!.f.J.;./.•.•~: r.f.f. •.f. •.f.f.f.f.!.f.f.• ''~`'''`'`"•°'''"`'`'`~`'''`''~''`~`'` `~`"`'` `"'gyn. ~ `.'!,/,J•/•/•f•I~F•/•f•f •f •£•:.f. •.f •l •f.l.J.!•f •i •1 . i...l.!.!.r.f.i.!.f•/.f./•J•J-/.f.f.f.f.f•!.i.f.f.f. r.J.J.J CITI' (?F OOLLEGE STATIOht 15E4JELOPhfEVT ~ERUI~E~ ifOf TEXAS At+E O~OLLEGE ~TATIQhl, TEXAS 77840 J.f•f r>.;...!.f.J.f.f.f.f.J.f.f.f.r.f.!.J.f.f.J..... J.J.3 .J.f.l.,.,.,.,.,.,.f.f •f•:.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., t ~ ,'''`!~I ,/•! 'f`i•i•f•f'f ~f •f ,/,l,!•!,J,J,f •I'F•f `/ ~.f.f.i.J.!.:.l.J.l.f./.7.f•l •I•f./.f.f./.J.f.l.7... r.~ Facsimile Cover Sheet To. ~ .~~a Company: ~ ~ ~~ ~- ~~-~_ . .~ Phone: Fax: From: Company: Phone: Fax: .,.J'f'J.f'J`f'f`.~f`f`^f'J•f`J'J',`f`,';n. (409) 764-3570 f~'1'1':.`.'\'\'\~\'.:'1'1~\'. ''~'\'~'t'~`'`'ti'~'t'~'~'~'~'~'~'~~"~'~~~'~'1• T ..):J.!...f.f.f.f.f.f.f.f.f. f•f•!•f •! •.!.!.!.f.f.f.!.f.f.f.f.f.!.f.f.f.•.nf.f.f.f.:.f . ''` `"''~'^'"`'''`'''`'`'''`'`•`•`.""`"""~`'~; t409) 7f 4-3496 EA}{ \'\'\-\••~\~\~\~\~\•\~\~\-\~\~\_'... !•l.f.f•f•f•f•l•f•l•f•f•f.f•/•f•J•/•J•/•l.f•f .f •i •/•.' ~\f\f1J1 \f I f f!! I J J f f!~ f \.•• •\•\•\••. •\•\•1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1'1•\•\•\•\•\'\•`t~ . 1.\.\. .\.\•\.\.\.\~t•1.\•1•\•\•\: r.! :i r.f.f.f.f.f.f.f.f.f.f. f.f.F. f.f.f•I.i.J. r.f.f.!.f .:f.!.f.l.t.f...!.!./1f1~1f1 ~ ~f1f'J'J'f-J 1.\•\•\. \.•.\.\.\•1.1.1•\•\•1.1•\•\•1.1.1•\•t•\•\•\•\•1•\• •\•\.1.1•\•i.\.\.\•\'1' \•1.1•\•~ !./•J•i•!•!•f-!•/•f•f•f•f•r.f•f.!•l.f •!•!J•f.f •f •J •J •J•l.r•q ~/ •f•/•f•l.f•!.l.J•!•!•f•f •/•!•!•f•••f•r.f •/•J•I . \ 1 \-\•\~\~\•1•\•1•\•1.1~1.1~\•\•\•1.1 •\•\~\•1•\•\•1~1•\~\• I .1.1.\.1.1.1•\•\•1.1.1•\•1.1•\•1•\•1.1.1.1.1•\• -I •I •f •f •!• Date: ~a _..~ Pages including this ~, cower page: 08/30/95 15:56 C 409 764 3496 DEVELOPIIIENT SVCS I~ 0 O 1 ~:;~sksk~:%k:k~k~k:k:S~:k:k%k~~~%k:~~ksk:k%k:k%k~k :x:x~; ACTIVITY REPORT :~:r~ :x:~~~~~x*x~~:x:~~:x*~;:~:~:~x~~:x~:~:~:x:x:r. TRANSIII I S S I ON OK TY/RX N0. 3104 CONNECTION TEL 97740496 CONNECTION ID EAGLE START TIME 08/30 15:54 USAGE TIME 01'44 PAGES 2 RESULT OK 12/18/95 1.3:38 ^t]409 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS l~ 0 O 1 %k~k*:k:k%k~~k~k:k:k~:k%k:Y.:kN~~k:k~k~~k~k:k%k~k%k :k:k~: ACTIVITY REPORT :k x:~k :Y•~~k%ksk:k%k%k:k%k%Y•:k%k:k%k~%k~k:k:k:k:k:k:k:k*:k TRANSMISSION OK TX/RY NO. 4310 CONNECTION TEL 9p7740496 CONNECTION ID START TIME 12/18 13:36 USAGE TIME 01'18 PAGES 2 RESULT OK ~ ~ •£. . £ £ r,,.i..~ CrIT~' C7 F' Gt}LLEGE ~TATt(kN t ' r~£~;-£~ •: ££ ££~a~£~£ °£~:-£.£•r•: pEtiELQPhfEUT SERUf~ES <,.;';`;`..,.,.,.,...,.> .............,.,.,...,. i t d t T E k A a Ate E £. £.£ £ £ £.£ £ £ r- £ £ £ }~ a\\\\.F . .• TEXAS, ~7$~(} G-ALLEGE ~TATI()N . . ,\ .,.,., , .r•i.r•r•r•/-!•f•l-r•r •!•r•i -!•i-r. e. e. r.£•l.r •/. r.r .. 1.~.r.£.,.r.r.r.r.,.,.,.,.r.,.r.,.,.,.r Facsimile Cover Sheet From: Company: Phone: Fax: Date: I ® ~-- Pages including this cover page: .;';~;.r./.r.r.rr.£•rr.r•rr-r•r•/.£.ra. C4C19~ 764-~57Ct ....... . 1 / / ! r / / / r £ ! r £ d r £ f r•r•rr ,.taa\\\\1\\aa\\aa.t\..,•.... C4Q~? 7f7 ~1-3~9f~ EAX ^ ~.,.'.,.,.,.•..',.•.•.••••, £ ' r ! ! ! £ £ / £ I I f l f / I f r J r-I-r-f s: -: i•£•f•/•f •7•i •J •f •J •r •J •/• .. 1 ..\. \. ~,... a.a•,.,., ~, .,.,.,.,.,., i•£•:•/•:-:.£•£•J•t•r-£•Jlr•f -r•£•/•r•/•£,r~f ;~ r•!-r - r•£•f-r•!-i i£•£•£ 'lilt i•tifi£i ,.a.a..a.a.va-a.a-a.aa•a-a•a-a.a-\•\•.•~-a.v~ `.t-a•a•a'•' ... r. .; .r. .;~;'.;'.a.;t.;.;.r.r.r.ri£.:.,.;.£.£.nr.rr.r-r.r.r.r.r-r.ra .rf.r. ,.; ...r•£irf .....• t a a.a a ..tat , i.a.a.aa-a, a.a.,.,•a•a•a.va.va•agFa_ •,•,.,.a.i.va.a.t. .'a-a.i ~ ;~.•\-~ £•r•r-r•r•£•r•£. r•£•r•r•r•£-r-r• r..£.r.r.r.r.r. •\~a-1 •\•a•\•\•a rr•rr•/•o•r•r• r c~ ^ ~~ 3 ~` ~ '' ~~ January 29, 1996 Winnie Garner 401 Dexter Dr. College Station, Texas Dear Commissioner Garner, This letter is to inform you of my family's opposition to the rezoning of the 50 acres east of Shaffer Road. We live on Hasselt street in the Edelweiss subdivision. We bought our home two years ago primarily because it is located on a quiet street close to the junior high and high schools. We like the fact that many of our new neighbors are young couples with small children. This indicates a safe and stable neighborhood. To date we feel that our choice was a good one. Rezoning the area east of Shaffer road to R-lA and R-2 poses a potentially serious threat to our neighborhood. Property values are determined in a large part by the value of surrounding property. R-lA and certainly R-2 zoning of the area just east of our community will surely lower our property values. The greatest threat to our neighborhood from rezoning is the loss of our security. Hasselt and Astor are slated to become collector streets for this new subdivision. This is completely unacceptable to us as these streets simply are not collector streets. We are enclosing photographs of our street and a collector street. Please note that on Hasselt when there are two cars parked on opposite sides of the street, only one car can pass between them. The same is true of Astor. These are just residential streets. Children play in and around them. Victoria, on the other hand, is a collector street. Please note that there is little access to it from the adjacent homes. There are bike lanes clearly marked on both sides. People expect a lot of traffic on Victoria but not on Hasselt. When we bought our home we realized that the area east of Shaffer would be rezoned eventually. We considered the drawing points of the area; the schools, the hospital, and; the remoteness from the university. We felt that the ayes east of us would eventually be rez®ned from agricultural to R-1. We would not be opposed to this providing that Hasselt or Astor are not used as collector streets for this new subdivision. A committee from our neighborhood recently met with the developer of the area east of Shaffer road and came up with a possible solution for all of our concerns. The primary threat to our community stems from the increase in traffic on Hasselt and Aster. The developer proposed closing these streets by installing cul-de-sacs where they currently join Shaffer road He suggested moving Shaffer road to the middle of his subdivision in order to allow it to act as his primary collector street. This would resolve our problem of increased traffic on Hasselt and Aster. The developer proposed to further segregate our subdivision from his by installing a landscaped area containing a privacy fence or wall where Shaffer is now. ®ur family feels that if the city will agree to, close Hasselt and Aster to through traffic, allow the developer to use the land where Shaffer road is currently located to build a abuffer zone between our subdivisions, and require the completion of the two previous conditions prior to the commencement of any construction, then we would not object to rezoning this area. Sincerely, Mike, Terry, Misti, and Katie Noack 715 Hasselt College Station, Texas 77845 mn 01/19/96 15:12 ^t'409 764 3496 DEVELOPhIENT SVCS ~I ool ~e~x: ACTIVITY REPORT ~~* TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX N0. 4578 CONNECTION TEL 9p7740496 CONNECTION ID START TIME 01/19 15:.11 USAGE TIME 00'43 PAGES 1 RESULT OK Y _. ..- ~~ ~ r ~~~~ ~~, `~ ~ ~~ f. .. ~ ~- --~ a . _ __ ~. JV` 1'~`~S ~~~ -,b l~ ~?~ ~: -~ _? ~~~5` ~ ~~~ ~ ~ Xd!~ ,~ Y~~" =' C~ ,~ ~~oc~~~ ~k -1 ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~i~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~•, CITY OF C®LLEGh ~TATIOI~i j LEGAL DEPARTMENT ® POST OFFICE 80X 9960 t 101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842.9960 (408} 764.3507 MEMORANDUM TO: ~Gll~t~ ~iYYI FROM: Cathy Locke, City Attorney RE: DATE: ~ Your request has been received by the Legal Department. We have numerous requests pending at this time. In order to aECOmplish all the work we have, it will be ° necessary for us to prioritize departmental requests. As of this time, the status of your request is as follows: Your request has not been assigned to an attorney, but will be assigned as soon as possible. ~ Your request has been assigned to If the attorney needs more information, you wi be conta d. If you feel that the Legal Department needs more information to prioritize your request, please make sure that information is noted on the request or provide further written support. We will provide you with the legal support you requested as soon as possible. Please understand that there are numerous competing needs. CL cc: 9~c~~ 'R~/ ®~ Printed by Shirley Volk 5/23/95 8:45am From: Joey Dunn To: Shirley Volk Subject: fwd: home depot ===NOTE====------=====5/18/95==8:41am=====________=__-______=__=__=_________ Shirley, Richard McCullough has called a couple times to see if we have gotten inquiries from Home Depot to locate here. Have you heard anything? Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==5/18/95==2:24pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Joey Dunn ............................................................................ No. This is from Natalie. Shirley won't be back until Monday. Fwd=by:=Joey=Dunn=====5/18/95==2:39pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk .................. ............................................................. i know; this is for when she gets back Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==5/22/95=10:43am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Joey Dunn CC: :lane Kee, Natalie Thomas, Sabina Kuenzel No, I haven't had any contacts from Home Depot people. Even if I did, I wouldn't tell anyone else unless I had an application. Visiting with someone about a project is not considered "Public Information" until we have an aci~ual application in our hand. In fact, we should not tell anyone about our v:i.sits about potential development until we have an application - it could mess up their deal. We certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for that! By the way, who is Richard McCullough? Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======5/22/95=10:48am_____________________________===______ Fwd to: Shirley Volk ............................................................................ You're=_ right. We mess them up well enough once we get an application!! Hey - Steve Ardan called Fri. Wanted to know if we knew of anything going on on the property just east of Edelweiss. I remember some a-mail on improvements to Arnold and (I can't for the life of me think of the name of that other n/s road that borders Edelweiss). Anyway I told him if I found something that was public info I'd get back with him. He may call you about this. Do you remember this? Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==5/22/95=10:56am___________________________°_=_________ Fwd to: Jane Kee Yes. V & I and I don't remember who else met with Earl & Don Garrett about some land there that Joe Courtney was bidding on that they had some questions on regarding Graham Road, Arnold Road and Schaffer Road improvements. Anyway, Joe called me the next day, and he was the successful bidder and wanted to know what to do about those streets, so I told him that until we see something a little more concrete that the info Earl & Don had for us, we would be unable to tell them exactly what we would require regarding required improvements to those streets. He seemed to be satisfied, but there again, I don't think we should be telling Steve Arden about this. If Joe wants him to know, he can call him and tell him! Right? Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======5/22/95=11:33am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk ........... .................................................................. right - BUT we also have to balance that with letting adjacent property owners know about things that would affect their developments. Steve is ocncerned about traffic going through Edelweiss to get to Victoria or Rock Pr. Remember there is one residential street that exists onto Shaffer (however, I recall that it is there for that precisely that purpose. Steve wanted it small and not a 60' ROW like we wanted). But if the area east develops at a high density then it really does have an inpact on that reisdential street. Anyway Steve was trying to find out what might develop there. Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==5/22/95=11:43am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Jane Kee Printed by Shirley Volk 5/23/95 8:45am We talked about duplex & patio home development, but it was really only conceptual - and drawn on onion skin paper. Y probably could get a copy from Earl if you want one. Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======5/23/95==8:16am_____________________°_______________=_ Fwd to: Shirley Volk not necessary - when we do get something "official" help me remember to contact Steve. Thanks. Page: 2 Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ftZ) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [ofAsterJ coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go northwest from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their s~g~estions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for yo time. Name: fp`~~" R ~ ~ ~:~=° ~ ~~~. ~-, , '~ ~ ;..~..,.aa Address: _ ~~ Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above financial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the financial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that arse affected~the most by it. Thank you for your time. a°' ": d`a Name: ~` ~~~ a ~.~~~ ~~ rf r Address: ~~,~ °i t ~ ~- ~ d Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection.. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss: Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127.. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. Accordmg to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance) without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above financial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. Name: ` ,. ,. Address: - n~.~-~ r"'- '~-- `~ ~~..(~~'~.- /U ~ C~2`f~ ~'l 70/ ,~s~2 Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This properly directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ftZ) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards.. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through ttaff c " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the financial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when-this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. ~ ,r-'~ Name ~ ~~~'~ , .~-/~•,~-~'' ~~-~ ~~~••--,~'a~.~ Address: ~~ ,~ 'c % ~!~: Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the/most by it. Thank you for your e. f d'zrca A ~A''r~rJ Name: ,~N'r•3y Address: 6 Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-1A and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [ofAsterJ coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance) without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go northwest from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above financial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. Name: .sc~/~~ ~ ~.. ~~... ~ ~-' ,~:~ $-"'=_""° Address: ~'~,%`~--,..-.®~-~. ~~ ~ Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance) without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go northwest from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. a~ ~~ ~ Z Name: (+~' ~*®._ ,~~', , ~ ~ ~ ' Address: ~ ~°~' Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value. and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [ofAsterJ coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traj~c " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. Name: ~(~Ylt~l..(~. ~(-''Irl,~..(~~`J Address: n ~ ~1 .v 1~p2 s ~.r Un 2 Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-1A residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ftZ) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with. this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. Name: ,~~e~o ~~.1~~$~:~~" Address: ~t~tQ~~~ a ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ftZ) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster] coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance) without encouraging outside ttaff c ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through ttaff c " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above financial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the financial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. .~, ,, Name: ,~ ,f%~F, ~~<./`?~_"~.~=1rf ~ Address: `~ Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [ofAsterJ coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance) without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. ._. Name: " ' ~~ ~ t°a ~°_ ff~ ~'' ~~ i ~~_ Address: Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traj~c ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go northwest from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. ~ R Name. ,,; , ~ ~ - *~ .. ~ ~ ~` ~ ~. a~ ~~; _ ~_ ~... _ ~, Address: ~.~ ~ ~' Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ftz) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance) without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traff c " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go northwest from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the financial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. t ~ ' ""r Name: ~`~~~ o~°~"~, ~ ~`~ /~~~ lL~ t'3 /'` !fi ~~~ ~ c~ ~M[ , ~~ .. d' ~ ~'~"~° ~, ~~.E~t~ Address: ~~n ~. fl°d~.~`"~~ ~ T^ ..~ P ~ ~`~, Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ftZ) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above financial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the financial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. ~~ Name: ;~''~ ~~,~~ l'~~ ~ ~."v~h~, ! Address: ;~ i ~° ~~ Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above financial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the financial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. Name. ,~"~',~~r~~=~. `a~~ . ~.,~ ~ '..~ ~~ ~~s~~ ,.. ~ ~ ~ 'rte Address: (~„ ;~~ ~~~G ~°~ ;.~:€.~ ~,~_ ~ ~ I b ~~~ r ~ ~a~~~~~,ma Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates .and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance) without encouraging outside traffic ". ~7Vhile the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above financial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. Name: ~ ~l i P ~~. ~: ~ ,'~° ~ ~ } cm`-~'" V ~ y" ~ ~ Er Address: ~~~~ s~, ~~C~~~c~~. ~" ~_~, ~ ~.C=`~~ ~~C~!`~'$~"~t"`„ a Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic" if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go northwest from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. Name: r~. ~ ~ 9:' ~~~ +J~ Address: ~-~ :~ °~~~'„~~ ~~~- ~ ~ ~ ~,!3 ~ ~ ~.,~` Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ftZ) as can the lot widths. The number of'allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. ~i f ;° ~• Nam ~~ Addy 1 ~} ~~~ ~ ,~-~„ ~ Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through ttaff c " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go northwest from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above financial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the financial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. v ..~ i,~R Name: ~J'~1 ~ G~ ~~ ,~' ;~'~ ~ ~~. ~ 1~ ~ Address: ,~., ~,~ ~ ~~ ~ L. ~- ~ ,~... e Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance) without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go northwest from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents.. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank yo~ for your time. a 9 `~ ~. ~ ,~ Name: -~~ > -. .•~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~-~°~ ~, Address: "~~ ~'~ ~~ ~ ~,~' ~ ~ , ~, ~ ~~ Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with thin assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our blouse prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and housles (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivisio ?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [ofAsterJ coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance) without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through ttaff c " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above financial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time ~,,, Ry . ail % „''9 ~~~ ~.,-~ \ ,.,-:a ~ '~ ~ ~FYWy '~4. ~~'~ ab ~~ Name: ~ .... . ~ ~ . ~~` Address: ~ '~ ,~_,., ~ ~, ?' ~; , ~. Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ftZ) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance) without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic" if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above financial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the financial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. ~, Name: ~~ ~, Address: ~.~ //( ,~ _ L~y A Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and. those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance) without encouraging outside ttaff c ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go northwest from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the financial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. ~"~ Name .,... ~~~, ~ ~~~(`, ~. ~~ ,~I r Address:-°M-~~~~, ~ '` ~'" ~ f :~. ., ~. ~. 1. t-l:. `- ~.~.._.. // ~~~ N u Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.92 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance) without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go northwest from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above fmancial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that are affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. Name: Address: Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. Currently the property is zoned A-O (agriculture open) and the proposal calls for rezoning 17.28 acres of it to R-lA and 32.72 acres to R-2. This property directly abuts the eastern boundary of Edelweiss Estates where I reside. My concerns are twofold: 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296. Therefore, the proposal would allow for 423 units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The R-2 area is opposite to Edelweiss Estates and can't help but negatively effect our house prices. The R-lA will also be next to our subdivision and will no doubt involve smaller lots and houses (after all who would build houses equivalent to the ones found in Edelweiss Estates next to a duplex subdivision?) 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). This is especially true in our case because neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector street standards but rather only to residential street standards. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de-sac at the west end [ofAsterJ coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traffic ". While the city planners claim that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go northwest from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above financial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the fmancial and safety burden associated with this development. There will be a number of concerned citizens at the council meeting when this issue is discussed and I encourage you to listen to their suggestions for making this rezoning acceptable to the taxpayers that; ~ e affected the most by it. Thank you for your time. -~ s Name: Address: << .... Jay„ i"P Date: February 1, 1996 To: College Station Planning and Zoning Commission The Proposed Connection of Hasselt and Aster To Schaffer Road From a mother's point of view the proposed connection of Hasselt and Aster to Schaffer Road is terrifying! In am concerned with the rezoning, but my main concern lies with the safety of our children; Abby(5), Matthew (2) and other children in the subdivision. Our children and others in the neighborhood spend a great deal of time playing out front. No matter how closely you watch them or tell them to "look before crossing" you cannot foresee everything that will happen. A child may be crossing to visit a friend, darting after a ball, or riding his bike when an "unseen" car approaches. The neighborhood cars watch for children because they know they are there. For example, my son recently took a tumble off his bike, landing in the street. In the few minutes it took me to reach him a approaching car would have hit him if they had not been watching for children and movin sg lowly. You cannot convince me that with the increase in traffic with the proposed connection that everyone will use extreme caution when passing through our neighborhood. It only takes one child and one car for a child to die! I am also concerned with the increase in "unknown" vehicles. With the current amount of traffic in our "quiet" neighborhood, you get to know what belongs and what does not. In this day and age, this makes a difference ..... a "stranger" can be "life threatening" to our children. "Why does the city want to endanger our children's lives? Sonya Bland ,t n ~~ y ,., Larry and Bev Rilett 718 Aster Drive College Station, Tx 77845 Thursday, February 15, 1996 Dear City of College Station Planning and Zoning Representative, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. As a resident of Edelweiss Estates I have a number of problems with the proposal as it now stands. Issue 1: Incompatibility of Development with Existing Neighborhoods The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. I would like to see development with guidelines comparable to that of the majority of the houses in the surrounding neighborhoods of Edelweiss Estates and Williams Court rather than a hodgepodge of different housing types. While I realize that is obviously impossible to have each neighborhood in a city consisting of the same characteristics Ibelieve the differential between Edelweiss Estates and the new neighborhood is too great. Issue 2: Using Residential Streets as Collector Streets Regardless of the type of development that proceeds to the east of Edelweiss Estates I believe that the city will set a dangerous precedent by allowing residential streets to be used as collector streets. I would support the development as it now stands if the concessions that the developer (Mr. Joe Courtney) agreed to at a meeting between the developer, the city and the residents of Edelweiss Estates were written into the development plan. In particular: • Aster and Hasselt are blocked off at the end of old Schaffer road • all of the housing units along old Schafer road and adjacent to Edelweiss Estates be no more than one story tall • adequate landscaping be provided between "old" Schafer road and the new subdivision. This would include adequate fencing as well • that no development occur until the "new" Schafer road is constructed, the old "Schafer" road is blocked off and the landscaping is complete. It appears that the only opposition to the above proposal comes from the City of College Station which desires that there be a direct connection between the two neighborhoods. In appears that the City of College Station desires to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. As a transportation engineer and an Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering (specialty area: Transportation Planning) at Texas A&M University I believe this plan will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. I would like to point out why I believe a connection should not be done. There are several important points related to using Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the proposed subdivision. I will address them in the order they appear in the City of College Station Staff Report dated January 26, 1996 entitled "Traffic Information Relative to the Schaffer Rezoning" • Aster and Hasselt were not designed as collector streets • The report states that the decision to use Aster and Hasselt as collector roads was made about 3 years ago. However, if this was the case it should be ascertained why neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed to collector road standards but rather to residential street standards. • For example, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommends that for collector streets "Two moving traffic lanes plus additional width for shoulders and parking are sufficient for most urban collector streets"I. Given that Aster and Hasselt were obviously designed to local urban streets standards as defined by AASHTO (i.e. 26 foot width) it is interesting to point out what the AASHTO guidebook states about the design criteria for local streets. " [on urban local streets] service to through movements is usually deliberately discouraged" page 15. "In such cases (residential streets) the overriding consideration is to foster a safe and pleasant environment. The convenience of the motorist is a secondary consideration." page 428. • While the city staff may have imagined Aster and Hasselt as collector streets any reasonable person buying in the area would not make this assumption. As an aside, as a transportation engineer I never thought for one moment that my residential street was classified as a collector. If I had I would have purchased my second choice house -- in Bryan. • I believe that 1) because the city made no attempt to indicate to the residents of Edelweiss Estates that Aster and Hasselt were considered collectors and that 2) no reasonable person would assume that they were collectors I believe the city has a moral obligation not to use these streets as collectors. This is especially true based on the number of families with young children who bought houses on these two streets specifically to provide a safe environment for their children. • The neighborhood structure will compound the traffic impact • While the city claims that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " (as reported in their original staff report) if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. Even the staff report agrees with this when it states that the Fire Department would like to have the access because they can save approximately a minute and a half if they use the connection (coming from the Northwest). Obviously, anyone in the new development will come to the same conclusion. • A detailed traffic impact study is required • The city is attempting to back up their claims that Aster and Hasselt will not be significantly impacted by attempting to estimate the amount of traffic that will cut through our neighborhood (i.e. less than a thousand). I do not believe that the analysis done to date is sufficient and that a detailed traffic impact study is required. In these situations a traffic impact study, at the minimum, should analyze the a.m. peak period, the p.m. peak period and the off-peak period rather than simply the average conditions as stated in the staff report 2. Obviously, the greatest amount of traffic will occur in the morning and afternoon as people head for their work and just as obviously that will be the time when the children of Edelweiss Estates are walking to school, waiting for school buses or simply playing in their front yards. Intuitively, the two uses conflict to the detriment of the children of the neighborhood. It is my professional opinion that this proposal will significantly increase the traffic in our neighborhood and pose a significant decrease in safety to our children. This is based on my years of experience in the transportation engineering field, the recommended design policies of AASHTO, and the recommended practices of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. In my opinion the city should only allow the land to be rezoned and the development to proceed if the compromise worked out between the developer and the residents of Edelweiss Estates is written into the development plan. That is, if Aster and Hasselt are blocked off at the "old" Schaffer road to ensure that people from this new subdivision don't shortcut through residential areas along roads intended for residential use. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above financial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the financial and safety burden associated with this development. If you wish to talk to me personally about this letter please do not hesitate to contact me or my wife Beverley at 696-1960. Thank you. L.R. Rilett, Ph.D., P.Eng. References: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1994. 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation Planning Handbook, , 1992 Date: February 1, 1996 To: College Station Planning and Zoning Commission The Proposed Rezoning of Property Adjacent to Edelweiss Estates The rezoning of the property adjacent to Edelweiss to R-2 and R-1 A will have a negative impact on the residents of the Edelweiss Subdivision. The property values of our subdivision will be affected and the safety of our children, Abby (age 5), Matthew (age 3), and other children in the subdivision will be endangered. Most families in the subdivision purchased their homes based on the location to schools and recreation facilities with the safety of only neighborhood traffic. Hasselt and Aster streets have sidewalks on one side and children cross the streets to walk or play on the sidewalks. Young children catch the bus at the side of the street to attend school and their safety will be sacrificed if the traffic is increased to reach 1000 cars per day! In a memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 26, 1996, from Sabine Kuenzel and Ed Ilard, the recommendation was made to connect the subject property to the Edelweiss Subdivision with access on Hasselt and Aster streets to Schaffer Road. This memo states: "Single family residential areas should be located within easy access of shopping, schools, and recreation, but should be protected from any incompatibility of more intense uses." The properties in Edelweiss are single family residential areas. The proposed rezoning of the subject property to R-2 will allow many individuals (ie. commonly done by college students) to share a duplex. Thus dramatically increasing the number of occupants and vehicles per dwelling. This is not consistent with the policy of maintaining a single family residential area. The policy also states: `:..should be protected from any incompatibility of more intense uses". This proposed use of the subject property violates that stated policy with a more intense use of our residential streets which were only planned for neighborhood traffic, subjecting our children to extreme danger. Another policy that is stated: "Balance development of all modes of transpiration to assure the fast, convenient, efficient, and save movement of people and goods to, from ,and within the community." Using Hasselt and Aster as collectors streets as proposed in this memorandum would clearly not be safe or efficient for either residents of Edelweiss or residents of the new development. If one car is parked curbside on either street, traffic flow is reduced to only one vehicle at a time. This is not consistent with the city's definitions of a collector street! When the residents of Edelweiss purchased our lots and homes, we incurred the expenses for developing the north/south thoroughfare of Victoria in our lot prices. The developer of the new proposed subdivision should be required to do the same and develop a collector street eastward and north to Rock Prairie as laid out in the city's long range plan. Why does the city wish to lower the developers cost by compromising the safety of our children? The above items are clearly inconsistent with the cities stated policies. We recommend to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council and Mayor of College Station the following. The zoning of subject property currently proposed as R-1A be R-1 with the same deed restrictions as Edelweiss. The subject property currently proposed as R-2 be R-1 A. • Hasselt and Aster streets not be accessible to subject property as collector streets. Thus no through access to Aster and Hasselt from subject property. The new Schaffer road be connected to Arnold (and the old Schaffer road be closed before any development takes place). • Appropriate fencing and landscaping become a priority in the development of subject property with residents of Edelweiss concurring on the plan for such development. Fencing be a minimum of brick pillars with wood between to insure stability. Landscaping on the old Schaffer Road similar to the landscaping of Rock Prairie Street. If these issues are ignored, the families in Edelweiss Estates will not only be affected by decreased property values but more importantly, the safety of our neighborhood children will be endangered. Andy Bland ~~ ~~~~~„,~~ Sonya Bland Abby Bland Matthew Bland 703 Hasselt College Station, Texas 77845 694-8909 From: Kent Laza To: ~MIES, JKEE Date: 4/10/96 11:40am Subject: Schaffer rezoning tomorrow nite. - URGENT -Reply Although nothing is written in stone, here's my suggestion on what to do with the remainder of Schaffer Rd. Since a short section of it is being used for access to a piece of property that adjoins it, we will have to maintain at least the first few hundred feet off Graham in its present condition. Also, since the roadside ditch serves as a drainage path for property to the north, we will also have to keep some or all of the ROW up to the new turn-around that. We may be able to eliminate the gravel surface adjacent to this section of ditch, but essentially it will stay as it is. »> Jane Kee 04/10/96 10:38am »> Jon - will the Chief be prepared to address 1 and 2 below? Kent - will you give me something to say of 3? Sabine may not be here tomorrow and your truly will ge to handle this one. thanks »> Edwin Hard 04/09/96 04:06pm »> I got a call from Zarry Rilett(sp) 845-1717 today re the emergency access/Scahffer situation. He was just calling to touch base and had a few questions. He said he thought the rezoning would go ok that most people (not all) can live with emergency access. He said most are still concerned about some pf the details like.... What will it look like? How will it be enforced? What will be done with the rest of Schaffer Road? We both agreed that if more of the details were known, it would go more smoothly at Council. I said that we'd try and have answers to some of these questions at the meetng. He wanted to know what kind of assurance there is that the developer carrys through with what he saps he's going to do once the rezoning is passed. I said I didn't know for sure but I thought we'd be able to make some of it a conditon of the rezoning. He also wanted to know how the April 2nd meeting between the developer and the City went? I said. I didn't know - that I didn't attend? Frankly, I didn't know there was one? Sabine, he didn't request a call back, but if I gave any misinfo or if you an fill him in better than I did you may want to call him back. All in all he thought the rezoning would go ok.... he said he felt we've deft with the traffic issue - their biggest concern. CC: EHARD, JCALLAWAY ZONING DISTRICT INFORMATION SUMMARY Case #95-109 From A-O to R-lA & R-2 ExistingA-OAQricultural Dien Zoning District: PURPOSE: This district includes lands within the corporate limits of the City which are not subdivided and are relatively undeveloped. It may also include those areas mentioned in Section 5 above. This district is designed to promote orderly, timely, economical growth. and to recognize current conditions. It is a reserved area in which the future growth of the City can occur. PERMITTED USES: Single family dwellings. Barn, stable for keeping private animal stock. Country club (publicly or privately owned). Crop production. Farm. Truck garden (including greenhouse for commercial purposes). Golf course. Home occupations. Pasturage. Poultry production (non-commercial). Riding academy (private).. Proposed R-lA Single Family Residential District: PURPOSE: This district is designed to provide land for detached single family residential .development for smaller lot sizes with greater design flexibility. PERMITTED USES: Single family dwellings. Home occupations. Proposed R-2 Duplex Residential Disb•ict: PURPOSE: This district contains land which has been subdivided for single family residential purposes and associated uses as well as larger parcels of property which lend themselves to duplex dwellings. This district is at moderate density. It may be utilized as a transitional .zone between low density and other residential uses. PERMITTED USES: Duplex dwelling units. Single family dwellings, built under the restrictions of District R-lA. Home occupations. Date: February 1, 1996 To: College Station Planning and Zoning Commission On Saturday, January 27, 1996, over 35 residents of the Edeeweiss Subdivision met to discuss the .impact of safety, transportation and property valuation related to the rezoning requests for the property development by Mr. Courtney and the use of Schaffer Road as a point of access to the subject property. After a thorough discussion of the concerns expressed by all residents, the following issues appear to be prioritized according to the needs, of the residents of the subdivision: _ . Zoning Issues • The rezoning of the property to R-2 is not in the best interest of the residents of the subdivision and perhaps not the city of College Station. • -The property valuation of the subdivision WILL be impacted. • The numbers of residents in R-2 housing may-increase needs for city services. • Concerns were expressed for traffic access, safety of the children in the neighboring schools and recreation access areas. Other issues were discussed that are directly and indirectly related to the impact of rezoning to R- 2, thus the citizens of Edelweiss recommends to this commission that the zoning of the subject property be that of R-1A to R-1, R-2 to R-1A and fall within the same deed restrictions of Edelweiss subdivision. In a memorandum to the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 26, 1996, from Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner and Ed Ilard, Transportation Planner, the recommendation was made to connect the subject property to the Edelweiss Subdivision with access on Hasselt and Aster streets to Schaffer Road. According to that memorandum the following policies were referenced and the residents request the concerns of the residents of Edelweiss subdivision to the addressed policies be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. "Single family residential areas should be located within .easy access of shopping, schools, and recreation, but should be protected from any incompatibility of more intense uses." • The properties in Edelweiss are single family residential areas. The proposed~'"~zoning would place the subject property in R-2, allowing for residents to be several indivitrdals sharing a duplex. The number of members per dwelling and smaller lot size impacts the Edelweiss subdivision and the concerns of traffic. It cannot be ignored that in current duplexes in the City of College Station several students share cost of housing by occupying at least two individuals per bedroom, thus the number of members per duplex seems beyond a single family residential area referenced to in the previously mentioned policy. The policy states "should be protected from any incompatibility of more intense uses". It is the consensus of the residents of Edelweiss subdivision that the proposed use of subject property violates the policy with a more intense use of the residential streets, planned for only neighborhood traffic, and subjecting the many children of the neighborhood to extreme danger in access to the school bus, neighborhood sidewalks, travel to and from school, and the Southwood Athletic Park.. Thus the residents recommend that the consideration of the rezoning to R-2 does not meet with the stated policy above. Transportation Access The second policy in the memorandum that was addressed is as follows: Balance development of all modes of transportation to assure the fast convenient, efficient, and safe movement of people and goods to, from and within the community. The residents of Edelweiss have purchased lots and homes in the subdivision paying for the incurred expenses for developing the north/south thoroughfare of Victoria in lot prices. The neighborhood streets were not designed to accommodate the flow of heavily congested areas as evidenced by the street width. The design of Victoria according #o the Master Plan was to connect the north/south flow with South Graham and Rock Prairie, streets designed to accommodate the congestion of traffic related. to school zones and access to city related needs. Thus the residents of subject property would have access to connector`streets via Graham with the closing of access to Hasselt and Aster. - It is the recommendation of the residents of Edelweiss that Hasselt and Aster Streets not become the collector streets for the subject property. The residents appreciate the concerns for safety of the Fire Department. The subject property would most likely be served by the new Fire Station to the south which appears to be more accessible via Graham#han through Hasselt and Aster Streets. The residents appreciate the concern of the Fire Department for quick response. In weighing the safety of our youngest residents as a major concern, we feel it is in the best interest of the residents of the Edelweiss subdivision to be protective of the potential traffic generated by using Hasselt and Aster as collector. streets for the proposed development. With the opening of Graham, Victoria and Rock Prairie and proposed access of Arnold Street to Rock Prairie from the subject property Edelweiss does not become a discontinuous subdivision nearly as much as neighborhoods in Emerald Forest, Raintree, Woodcreek, and is near the same accessibility as Southwood Forest via Rio Grande Street. The safety of the youngest residents of the Edelweiss subdivision is of major concern in this issue. Most residents of Edelweiss are young families with toddlers and school age children or grandparents with young children who visit. Most families in the subdivision purchased their homes based on the location to schools and recreation facilities with the safety of only neighborhood traffic. Hasselt and Aster streets have sidewalks on one side, children currently cross the street to play or walk on the sidewalk, young children catch the bus at the side of the street to attend the middle and .high schools and their safety will be sacrificed if the traffic is to reach 1000 cars per day! It needs to be a major concern for this commission and other city government entities that the protection of our children is not sacrificed .for the development of the subject property. Even the residents of the subject property would be placed in a dangerous traffic pattern if the subdivision does not-plan for the appropriate infrastructure to accommodate the traffic.. Thus' it is the .recommendation of the Edelweiss residents that Hasselt and Aster Streets be protected with :provisions in the Development Agreement to detail that plan for accommodation. The movement of residents of the subject property can be accommodated by the development of the infrastructure with in the development and the access to the adjacent Athletic park and schools via the bike path that has been a pan` of the Long Range Plan of the City. When the bike path is completed and the access of Arnold Street developed to the East the subject property has adequate access to collector streets, school and recreational facilities. It should be the concern of the commission that proposed development has adequate and safe access but not at the expense of the safety of current residents of Edelweiss and small children attempting to get to school. Thus the following recommendations of the residents of Edelweiss wish to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council and Mayor of College Station. • The zoning of subject property as R-1 with the same deed restrictions as Edelweiss. The residents recommend the subject property currently proposed as R-2 be R-1A. • Hasselt and Aster Streets not be accessible to subject property as collector streets. Thus no through access to Aster and Hasselt from sub}ect property. The new Shaffer road be connected to Arnold (and the old Schafer road be closed before any development takes place. • Appropriate fencing and landscaping become a priority in the development of subject property with residents of Edelweiss.concurring _on;the'plan fior. such development.. _ fencing be a minimum of brick pillars ~ivith wood between to insure-the stability. Landscaping on the old Schaffer Road similar to the landscaping of Rock Prairie Street. Thus the following recommendations of the residents of Edelweiss wish to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council and Mayor of College Station. • The zoning of subject property as R-1 with the same deed restrictions as Edelweiss. The residents recommend the subject property currently proposed as R-2 be R-1A. • Hasselt and Aster Streets not be accessible to subject property as collector streets. Thus no through access to Aster and Hasselt from subject property. The new Shaffer road be connected to Arnold (and the otd Schafer road be closed before any development takes place. • Appropriate fencing and landscaping become_a priority in the development of subject - property with residents of Edelweiss concurring orr he plan for such development: = `° fencing be a minimum of brick pillars with wood between#o'insure:the stability. ' Landscaping on the old Schaffer Road similar to the landscaping of Rock Prairie Street. Thank you for your timely consideration of this important matter. t ' ~- Concerned Re ~de~t of Edelweiss Subdivision Thus the following recommendations of the residents of Edelweiss wish to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council and Mayor of College Station. • The zoning of subject property as R-1 with the same deed restrictions as Edelweiss. The residents recommend the subject property currently proposed as R-2 be R-1A. • Hasselt and Aster Streets not be accessible to subject property as collector streets. Thus no through access to Aster and Hasselt from subject property. The new Shaffer road be connected to Arnold (and the old Schafer road be closed .before any development takes place. • Appropriate fencing and landscaping become a priority in the development of subject property with residents of Edelweiss concurring on the plan for such development. .fencing be a minimum of brick pillars ~n-ith wood between to insure the stability. Landscaping on the old Schaffer Road similar to the landscaping of Rock Prairie Street. Thank you for your timely consideration of this important matter. Concerned Resident of Edelweiss Subdivision ~1 Thus the following recommendations of the residents of Edelweiss wish to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council and Mayor of College Station. • The zoning of subject property as R-1 with the same deed restrictions as Edelweiss. The residents recommend the subject property currently proposed as R-2 be R-1A. • Hasselt and Aster Streets not be accessible to subject property as collector streets. Thus no through access to Aster and Hasselt from subject property. The new Shaffer road be connected to Arnold (and the old Schafer road be closed before any development takes place. • Appropriate fencing and landscaping. become a priority in the development of subject property with residents of Edelweiss concurring on the plan for-such: development Fencing be a minimum of .brick pillars, with-wood between to insure the "stability. '` Landscaping on the old Schaffer Road similar to the landscaping of Rock Prairie Street. Thank you for your timely consideration of this important matter. d?"~ Conc rued Resident of Edelweiss Subdivision -~. Thus the following recommendations of the residents of Edelweiss wish to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council and Mayor of College Station. • The zoning of subject property as R-1 with the same deed restrictions as Edelweiss. The residents recommend the subject property currently proposed as R-2 be R-1A. ~ Hasselt and Aster Streets not be accessible to subject property as collector streets. Thus no through access to Aster and Hasselt from subject property. The new Shaffer road be connected to Arnold (and the old Schafer road be closed before any development takes place. Appropriate fencing and landscaping become a priority in the development of subject property with residents of Edelweiss,:. concurring onahe plan,for_ such development: Fencing be a minimum of brick"pillars with;wood between to'insure the"stability. Landscaping on the old Schaffer Road similar to the landscaping of Rock Prairie Street. Thank you for your timely consideration of this important matter. ~ \ 44 ~° Concern~~ Resident of Iweiss Subdivision Thus the following recommendations of the residents of Edelweiss wish to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council and Mayor. of College Station. • The zoning of subject property as R-1 with the same deed restrictions as Edelweiss. The residents recommend the subject property currently proposed as R-2 be R-1A. • Hasselt and Aster Streets not be accessible to subject property as collector streets. Thus no through access to Aster and Hasselt from subject property. The new Shaffer road be connected to Arnold (and the old Schafer road be closed before any development takes place. • Appropriate fencing and landscaping become a priority in the development of subject property with residents of Edelweiss:concurring'on"the plan-'forsuchdevelopment. Fencing be a minimum of brick pillars with wood between to insure the stability. Landscaping on the old Schaffer Road similar to the landscaping of Rock Prairie Street. Thank you for your timely consideration of this important matter. ~~ r ncerned Res' nt of Edelweiss Subdivision "A~` f+°bZ/ ~~ .~~. ,~., x a ` ~ -. /f /~J I ;~ ,.~.,~ _~» ~~~ G~LiCA ~ Cc a / v ~i%~ ~ G~ Cam.,, ~e.~-~". ~% T~.~ G~'~.~e ~~~ ~ ~~ r ~ , O~/ ~4 ~2~~g~ ~~~~ ~~~'- e 1 G~~ G~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~_ ~,°.~ ~o a ~" Larry and Bev Rilett 718 Aster Drive College Station, Tx 77845 Thursday, January 4, 1996 Dear City Councilor, I am contacting you to voice my concern over the proposed rezoning of the property at the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham road intersection. As a resident of Edelweiss Estates and an Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering (specialty area: Transportation Planning) at Texas A&M University I see a number of problem areas with the proposal as it now stands. 1) The proposed rezoning allows significantly smaller lot sizes and consequently less expensive housing. I believe this will result in a lowering of my property value and those of my neighbors. While the R-lA residential zoning means only single family residential will be allowed it is a more lax zoning than that of Edelweiss Estates (R-1) because the lots can be smaller (minimum 4000 ft2) as can the lot widths. For example, the average lot width in Edelweiss Estates is 75 feet while the average lot width in this section of the proposed subdivision is on the order of 50 feet. The number of allowable R-lA units would be 127 although it appears the proposed number is in the vicinty of 80 units. The R-2 residential zoning is for duplex houses. Again the lots sizes will be significantly smaller with a much larger population density. The number of allowable R-2 units would be 296 although the plan calls for approximately 80 units (or 160 households). Therefore, the proposal would allow for approximately 240 households units (that would be significantly smaller than those of Edelweiss Estates) to be built immediately adjacent to our neighborhood. According to the staff report compiled by the City of College Station, the zoning change is not seen as effecting anyone in Edelweiss Estates. I disagree with this assumption completely. The planning report states that "the area south of the creek proposed for R-2 Duplex zoning is contiguous only to A-O Agricultural Open districts which are mostly vacant, and an M-2 Heavy Industrial district which is developed as light manufacturing". Again the city disregards the fact that the property will be less than 200 feet from the edge of Edelweiss Estates and will no doubt have an effect on all of our property values. The staff report also seems to indicate that the R-1 A is seen to be equivalent to R-1 zoning although it has "more design flexibility" -- that is it will involve smaller lots and patio houses. Having talked to a number of real estate agents in the past few days there is no doubt in my mind that this zoning will have an adverse affect on the investment we have made in our house. 2) The second issue regards the proposal to use the residential roads of Edelweiss Estates as an access point to the new subdivision. As a transportation engineer I believe this will result in decreased safety to the children in our subdivision and increased noise in our neighborhood. While I appreciate that all subdivisions should have two access points for safety reasons I don't believe residential streets in an adjoining subdivision should serve that purpose (again for safety reasons). There are a number of important points related to using Edelweiss Estates as an access point to an approximately 240 family subdivision. • Hasselt is never mentioned in the staff report. Obviously as it provides a direct connection between the proposed subdivision and Victoria it will be used as a connector by the new residents. • Neither Aster nor Hasselt was designed for heavy vehicle volumes but rather as residential streets. Even the staff report acknowledges this when it states that "a cul-de- sac at the west end [of Aster) coupled with its smaller size will help to satisfy this need [second entrance] without encouraging outside traffic ". • While the city claims that they don't want to encourage "cut through traffic " if this development proceeds as planned Aster and Hasselt will face a large amount of short cutting traffic. Obviously anyone wishing to go north/west from the proposed development will cut through Edelweiss Estates rather than go south on Schaffer, west on Graham and north on Victoria -the narrower streets of Aster and Hasselt notwithstanding. It is my professional opinion that this proposal will significantly increase the traffic in our neighborhood and pose a significant decrease in safety to our children. In my opinion the city would be much better off having either: • two access points off of Graham for the new subdivision, or • one access point off of Graham and the other off of Rock Prairie (the option that probably should have been done in the first place) .... and making sure the access road design was up to collector street standards rather than residential street standards. In either situation, Aster and Hasselt should probably be blocked off at Schaffer to ensure that people from this new subdivision don't shortcut through residential areas along roads intended for residential use. As a side note I have talked to both the developer of Edelweiss Estates and the proposed developer of the above parcel of land and both favor blocking of Aster and Hasselt and having an access point from Rock Prairie Road and another from Graham Road. It appears that only the city is balking at this solution. I encourage you to think very carefully about this rezoning proposal especially in light of the above financial, and more importantly, safety concerns of the residents. While I appreciate that development will occur on the above property I don't believe that the citizens of Edelweiss Estates should bear the financial and safety burden associated with this development. If you wish to talk to me personally about this letter please do not hesitate to contact me or my wife at 696-1960. Thank you. ~` ~a Larry and Bev Rilett Letter Concerning the Proposed Rezoning of Property Adjacent to Edelweiss Estates. Issue 1: Degraded zoning for our neighborhood (from A-0 to R-1A, not equivalent of R-1 of Edelweiss Estates) for the single housing rezoning request. This will lower the property values of Edelweiss Estates. Issue 2: Degraded zoning for our neighborhood (from A-0 to R-2, much lower than R-1 of Edelweiss Estates) for the duplex rezoning request. This will lower the property values of Edelweiss Estates. Issue 3: Rezoning 32.72 acres from A-0 to R-2 Duplex and rezoning 17.28 acres from A-0 to R-1A Single Family Residential will Decrease the safety for our children due to increased traffic. Edelweiss Estates (Hasselt and Aster) will become the direct route for these residents to use to access Victoria and Rock Prairie roads. Hasselt and Aster are residential streets, not collector streets. Issue 4: Issuing notice of public hearing and holding public hearing during Christmas holidays to have less opposition. College Station schools closed on Dec. 15, 1995 and will not reopen until Jan. 8, 1995. Residents from Edelweiss Estates may be out of town and will not get to voice their opinions at the Planning and Zoning Commission's public hearing. The notice of public hearing was not written until Dec. 21, 1995 with the hearing scheduled for Jan 4, 1996. If the above issues are ignored, the families in Edelweiss Estates will lose both in decreased property values and residential street safety. Andy Bland Sonya Bland 703 Hasselt College Station, Texas 77845 694-8909 Copies of the following letter dated Thursday, January 4, 1996 were signed by the following surrounding residents: Robert Lemon 721 Aster Drive ' Mr. & Mrs. Ward .718 Hasselt Street Mr. & Mrs. Atkinson 701 Aster Drive Bettye Giordano 716 Hasselt Street Mr. & Mrs. Jones 703 Aster. Drive Mr. & Mrs. Epperson 607 Hasselt Street Mr. & Mrs. Patton 61D Aster Drive Mr. & Mrs. Weise 7.12 Hasselt Street Russel Erickson 607 Aster Drive Stephen Chambers 708 Hasselt Street Mr. & Mrs. Bailey 700 Aster Drive Mr. & Mrs. Lawson 702 Hasselt Street Ronna Scruggs 602 Aster Drive Hongjie Xiong & Linhua Wang 610 Hasselt Street Robert Lee 604 Hasselt Street Mr. & Mrs. Brice 602 Hasselt Street Mr. & Mrs. Walters 603 Hasselt Street Johnny Chow 606 Hasselt Street Avutu "Sam" Reddy 605 Hasselt Street George Phylen 609 Hasselt Street Mr. & Mrs. Ross 611 Hasselt Street JoAnn & Anya 711 Hasselt Street Terry Noack 715 Hasselt Street Mrs. MacColl 719 Hasselt Street Mr. & Mrs. Gray 721 Hasselt Street *** Copies of each letter are available in the Planning Office. ,- ~~ h~~ ,Gi ~Q$r ~b d1ud~ tto::)~ t'ri1L 4Uy fS^kb UGJG ulan[.uJLt1iVL iC[:ryi. College Station Independent School District ~~ ~e11'ence In grfr~cation....,~rc Investment In'Ihe ~utune February 22, 1996 Mr. Steve Arden Brazosland Realty 4103 Texas Avenue Suite I00 Bryan, Texas 77802 Dear ~11r. Af°den: ~~~ The College Station ISD Board of Trustees authorized the administration to formally negotiate for the acquisition of a school site not to exceed twenty acres. Out of seven properties o~"ered: there are four (4) properties that we believe are potentially suitable sites for the Intermediate School (Grades S-6), that is planned to open in the fall, 1998. These sites are ident~ed on the attached information sheet. a After negotiating a price for a property, the district may ultimately need to have a Phase I environmental site analysis performed, have geotechnical evaluation of soils done, and perhaps a drainage study prior to a final purchase commitment. Potential property owners would have to allow access to the property for this purpose- After reviewing the attached information, please call me and let's gee together within the next week to discuss the properties you have of,~ered. Thank you. Sincerely, ~d Deal Assistant Superintendent for Business .....__...... --1612 VVeiah stet __ College station, ~ ?7840 JIM SOLES, Ph.Do 409.764-6456 ~~C 409-764-6492 Superintendent of Schools Post•It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 # of pages Tor / ~ h_ v From r { Co. Co. f)ept. Phone k Fax # ~ ~ Faz # x2/26/96 blq~t 09:00 FAX 409 846 0651 tSltti[;ubLr~ivil nL~L - COLLEGE STATION INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT S1TE NEGOTlAT10N INFORMATION 1 o Proposers should be prepared to offer either a 20 acre, or a 15 acre tract. The CSISD desires to pay no more than current market value for a school site. A short list of four sites has been developed. CSISD reserves the right to receive or solicit other proposals on other properties until a final purchase commitment is made by the Board of Trustees. If a satisfactory financial arrangement cannot be negotiated, the District reserves the right to reject ail proposals and pursue other property in the area; or expand the target area for a site. 2. CSISD believes that announcing the location of a school site immediately increases the value of surrounding property, and therefore owners of larger tracts may be motivated to offer a site at, or below, current market value. 3. CSISD believes that development of roadways, sidewalks, and bringing utilities to serve a school site also increases the value of surrounding, and particularly adjacent properties, again encouraging owners of larger tracts to offer a site at, °° or below, current market value. -~ 4. CSISD will entertain a proposal to purchase raw (and, and contract directly for bringing utilities to the site, and building roadways/sidewalks required by the • City, OR CSISD will entertain a proposal whereby an Owner/Developer offers price for an existing, fully developed site as a part of an overall development, OR CSISD will entertain a proposal whereby the Owner/Developer offers a raw {and price and site as a part of a proposed future development. CSISD will reimburse to the Owner/Developer apro-rata portion of the infrastructure development costs required by the City. The Owner/Developer would be required to submit auditable cost records to support the reimbursement, and payment to the OwnerlDeveloper for the development costs would be made upon acceptance by the City. CS{S® would require contract language to insure completion of the infrastructure in advance of the need. 5. Provided a satisfactory proposal is presented, a final purchase commitment could be made as earfy as March 18th, but could occur later. The Board of Trustees also reserves the right to reject all proposals. Any action to acquire a particular property will be in a regular, or called, open meeting of the Board of Trustees, and each property owner wii( be advised of the time and place of the meeting. .~,.,.:_ Page 1 of 2 U~2~1J6 B'tON 09:Op _L~A~ 4Uy d4ii ue~~ Sites currently under consideration include: 1. Approximate 58 acre site bounded on the south by S. Graham, Schaffer Road on the west, and Arnold Road on the north. Location of a site within this tract is flexible, and tracts on both the southern and northern portions of this tract would be considered. 2. Approximately 20 acres in the Edelweiss development at the northwest corner of Monier Drive and Edelweiss Drive (proposed street?. 3, Approximately 20 acres, which is a portion osed expansion tof EaglecAvenue with frontage on S. Graham Road. A prop (from the Cypress Meadows development) is proposed along the east property line, such that Lhe property would. be on the southwest comer of the intersection of S. Graham and Eagle (proposed). The center of the frontage on S. Graham would be approximately 1,100` east of the intersection of S. Graham and Schaffer Roads. Q.. Approximate 46 acre site located at the southeast corner of S. Graham and the proposed Victoria Avenue extension. The proposed Victoria Avenue extension ~~ would follow the west property line. Location of a site within this tract is flexible. Page 2 of 2 Estimate for Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT - I1 (From Schaffer Road to a Point 946 Feet East of Schaffer Road - 946 feet) Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 54,000.00 54,000.00 Prepare Right-of-Way AC. 1.30 2,500.00 3,250.00 Remove Old Structures (Pipe) EA. 0.00 105.00 0.00 Remove Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 0.00 10.00 0.00 Remove Concrete C&G L.F. 0.00 8.00 0.00 Roadway Earthwork C.Y. 1,868.00 3.00 5,604.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. 15% Lime) S.Y. 4,310.00 3.00 12,930.00 8" Flexible Base S.Y. 3,890.00 5.00 19,450.00 2" HMAC (Ty D) S.Y. 3,679.00 5.00 18,395.00 Concrete C&G L.F. 1,889.00 10.00 18,890.00 6' Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 1,254.00 23.00 28,842.00 Concrete Street Approach S.Y. 75.00 38.00 2,850.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA. 2.00 500.00 1,000.00 18" RCP L.F. 80.00 19.00 1,520.00 36" RCP L.F.. 946.00 45.00 42,570.00 5' Recessed Inlet E.A. 4.00 ~ 2,000.00 8,000.00 8'X4' Concrete Box Culvert L.F. 0.00 300.00 0.00 4" White Pavement Marking L.F. 1,847.00 0.20 369.40 Overhead Lighting L.F. 946.00 20,00 18,920.00 Traffic Control L.S. 1.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place Top Soil (4") S.Y. 895.00 0.40 358.00 Seeding S.Y. 895.00 0.10 89.50 Landscaping (Photinia1110' O.C.) E.A.. 89.00 95.00 8,455.00 Traffic Signs E.A. 3.00 115.00 345.00 Estimated Design Cost (10% of Construction) 20,283.79 Contingency 120% of Construction) 40,567.58 Design and Construction Cost 263,689.27 ESTIMATED COST: 5264,000.00 Estimate for Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT -III (From 946 Feet East of Schaffer Rd. to the East Corner of USC - 2,026 Feet Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 55,000.00 55,000.00 Prepare Right-of-Way AC. 2.80 2,500.00 7,000.00 Remove Old Structures (Pipe) EA. 1.00 105.00 105.00 Remove & Relocate Chain Link Fence L.F. 856.00 15.00 12,840.00 Remove Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 0.00 10.00 0.00 Remove Concrete C&G L.F. 0.00 8.00 0.00 Roadway Earthwork C.Y. 4,000.00 3.00 12,000.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. 15% Lime) S.Y. 9,230.00 3.00 27,690.00 8" Flexible Base S.Y. 8,330.00 5.00 41,650.00 2" HMAC ITy D) S.Y. 7,879.00 5.00 39,395.00 Concrete C&G L.F. 4,031.00 10.00 40,310.00 6' Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 2,622.00 23.00 60,306.00 Concrete Street Approach S.Y. 249.00 38.00 9,462.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA. 8.00 500.00 4,000.00 18" RCP L.F. :160.00 19.00 3,040.00 36" RCP L.F. 2,026.00 45.00 91,170.00 48" RCP L.F. 51.00 63.00 3,213.00 5' Recessed Inlet EA. 8.00 2,000.00 16,000.00 8'X4' Concrete Box Culvert L.F. 0.00 300.00 0.00 Headwall for 48" RCP EA. 2.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 4" White Pavement Marking L.F. 4,046.00 0.20 809.20 Overhead Lighting L.F. 2,026.00 20.00 40,520.00 Traffic Control L.S. 1.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place Top Soil (4") S.Y. 1,984.00 0.40 793.60 Seeding S.Y. 1,984.00 0.10 198.40 Landscaping (Photinia)(10' O.C.) EA. 136.00 95.00 12,920.00 Traffic Signs EA. 8.00 115.00 920.00 Right-of-Way S.F. 34,700.00 1.00 34,700.00 Estimated Design Cost (10% of Construction) 43,834.22 Contingency (20% of Construction) 87,668.44 Design and Construction Cost 604,544.86 ESTIMATED COST: 5605,000.00 Estimate .for Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT - IV (From the East Corner of USC to Rock Prairie Road - 760 Feet- Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 54,000.00 54,000.00 Prepare Right-of-Way AC. 1.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 Remove Old Structures (Pipe) EA. 0.00 105.00 0.00 Remove & Relocate Chain Link Fence L.F. 0.00 15.00 0.00 Remove Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 34.00 10.00 340.00 Remove Concrete C&G L.F. 99.00 8.00 792.00 Roadway Earthwork C.Y. 1,501.00 3.00 4,503.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. 15% Lime) S.Y. 3,463.00 3.00 10,389.00 8" Flexible Base S.Y. 3,125.00 5.00 15,625.00 2" HMAC ITy Di S.Y. 2,956.00 5.00 14,780.00 Concrete C&G L.F. 1,556.00 10.00 15,560.00 6' Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 1,002.00 23.00 23,046.00 Concrete Street Approach S.Y. 75.00 38.00 2,850.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA. 2.00 500.00 1,000.00 18" RCP L.F. 80.00 19.00 1,520.00 36" RCP L.F. 760.00 45.00 34,200.00 5' Recessed Inlet E.A. 4.00 2,000.00 8,000.00 8'X4' Concrete Box Culvert L.F. 0.00 300.00 0.00 4" White Pavement Marking L.F.. 1,511.00 0.20 302.20 Overhead Lighting L.F. 760.00 20.00 15,200.00 Traffic Control L.S. 1.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place Top Soil (4") S.Y. 754.00 0.40 301.60 Seeding S.Y. 754.00 0.10 75.40 Landscaping (Photinial(10' O.C.) E.A. 97.00 95.00 9,215.00 Traffic Signs E.A. 6.00 115.00 690.00 Right-of-Way S. F. 31,980.00 1.00 31,980.00 Estimated Design Cost (10°~ of Construction) 17,188.92 Contingency (20% of Construction) 34,377.84 Design and Construction Cost 255,435.96 ESTIMATED COST: 5256,000.00 Estimate for Arnold .Road Construction SEGMENT - V (From the East Corner of USC to Birmincaham Drive - 726 Feetl Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 54,000.00 54,000.00 Prepare Right-of-Way AC. 1.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 Remove Old Structures (Pipe) EA. 0.00 105.00 0.00 Remove & Relocate Chain Link Fence L.F. 726.00 15.00 10,890.00 Remove Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 0.00 10.00 0.00 Remove Concrete C&G L.F. 0.00 8.00 0.00 Roadway Earthwork C.Y. 1,434.00 3.00 4,302.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. (5% Lime) S.Y. 3,308.00 3.00 9,924.00 8" Flexible Base S.Y. 2,985.00 5.00 14,925.00 2" HMAC (Ty D) S.Y. 2,824.00 5.00 14,120.00 Concrete C&G L.F. 1,488.00 10.00 14,880.00 6' Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 956.00 23.00 21,988.00 Concrete Street Approach S.Y. 75.00 38.00 2,850.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA. 2.00 500.00 1,000.00 18" RCP L.F. 80.00 19.00 1,520.00 36" RCP L.F. 726.00 45.00 32,670.00 5' Recessed Inlet E.A. 4.00 2,000.00 8,000.00 8'X4' Concrete Box Culvert LF. 0.00 300.00 0.00 4" White Pavement Marking L.F. 1,443.00 0.20 288.60 Overhead Lighting L.F. 726.00 20.00 14,520.00 Traffic Control L.S. 1.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place Top Soil 14") S.Y. 698.00 0.40 279.20 Seeding S.Y. 698.00 0.10 69.80 Landscaping (Photinia)(10' O.C.) E.A. 140.00 95.00 13,300.00 Traffic Signs E.A. 4.00 115.00 460.00 Right-of-Way S.F. 0.00 1.00 0.00 Estimated Design Cost (1-0% of Construction) 17,948.66 Contingency (20% of Construction) 35,897.32 Design and Construction Cost 233,332.58 ESTIMATED COST: $234,000.00 Estimate for Arnold Road Construction SEGMENT - VI (From Birmingham Drive to Graham Road - 1.080 Feet) Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount Erosion/Sediment Control L.S. 1.00 54,000.00 $4,000.00 Prepare Right-of-Way AC. 0.00 2,500.00 0.00 Remove Old Structures (Pipe) EA. 0.00 .105.00 0.00 Remove & Relocate Chain Link Fence L.F. 0.00 15.00 0.00 Remove Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 0.00 10.00 0.00 Remove Concrete C&G L.F. 0.00 8.00 0.00 Obliterate Concrete Pavement S.Y. 1,734.00 15.00 26,010.00 Roadway Earthwork C.Y. 572.00 3.00 1,716.00 6" Lime Stab. Subgr. (5% Lime) S.Y. 1,320.00 3.00 3,960.00 8" Flexible Base S.Y. 0.00 5.00 0.00 2° HMAC (Ty D) S.Y. 0.00 5.00 0.00 Concrete C&G L.F. 2,184.00 10.00 21, 840.00 6' Concrete Sidewalk S.Y. 948.00 23.00 21,804.00 Concrete Pavement S.Y. 2,325.00 38.00 88,350.00 Wheelchair Ramp EA. 4.00 500.00 2,000.00 18" RCP L.F. 0.00 19.00 0.00 36" RCP L.F. 0.00 45.00 0.00 5' Recessed Inlet E.A. 0.00 2,000.00 0.00 8'X4' Concrete Box Culvert L.F. 0.00 300.00 0.00 4" White Pavement Marking L.F. 2,112.00 0.20 422.40 Overhead Lighting L.F. 1,080.00 20.00 21,600.00 Traffic Control L.S. 1.00 7,000.00 7,000.00 Furnish & Place Top Soil (4") S.Y. 1,065.00 0.40 426.00 Seeding S.Y. 1,065.00 0.10 106.50 Landscaping (Photinia)(10' O.C.) E.A. 100.00 95.00 9,500.00 Traffic Signs E.A. 6.00 115.00 690.00 Right-of-Way S. F. 0.00 1.00 0.00 Estimated Design Cost 110% of Construction) 20,942.49 Contingency (20% of Construction) 41,884.98 Design and Construction Cost 272,252.37 ESTIMATED COST: 5273,000.00 J r r,~ ! J r ~~ CONSULTING ENGINEERING & LANG SURVEYING 4444 CARTER CREEK PKWY, SUITE 108 BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 (409) 846-2688 [409) 846-3094 January 19, 1996 Chairman Hawthorne And Commissioners Planning & Zoning Commission City Of College Station, Texas RE: Rezoning Of Approximately 50 Acres Located At The Northeast Corner Of The Intersection Of Graham Road And Schaffer Road From A-O Agricultural Open To R1-A Single Family Residential And R-2 Duplexes. Dear Mr. Chairman And Commissioners, The above referenced project was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for your review, consideration and subsequent action January 4, 1996. The project was tabled as you know to give the developer and his representatives additional time to meet with concerned citizens having interest in the subject project. There are two (2) basic concerns that homeowners in the area have expressed in regards to the above referenced project. These are devaluation of their property and increased traffic potential. An informal meeting was conducted on Monday, January 15, 1996 at 4:00 p.m. in the City of College Station Council Room with concerned homeowners, the developer and his representatives. Several members of city staff were also present. An open forum format allowed attendants from all interested parties present to voice their concerns and opinions. A definite concern presented by the homeowners was that their home and property investments would be seriously compromised with the realization of the proposed Rl-A and R-2 rezoning which would allow the construction of homes of lower cost than those currently constructed within the Edelweiss Subdivision. The homeowners present in the meeting are opposed to any zoning less than R-1 being established on the subject property. After a lengthy discussion by the developer, his representatives, and the homeowners, it was determined that the issue of property devaluation was totally speculative and that the property devaluation issue would have to be considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. Projected traffic flow patterns were discussed along with possible solutions that could be implemented in the platting stage of the project. The residents living along Aster and Hasselt (the two streets that presently tie onto north Schaffer Road) do not want these streets to tie to the proposed project. Consideration was given to how to construct proper termination points for Aster and Hasselt. Attending residents expressed that. they would feel better about the proposed rezoning if adequate turn-around geometry and landscaping along with some type of aesthetic fencing could be provided at the terminus of said streets. The developer indicated he was in favor of terminating Aster and Hasselt and would work with City staff and the residents to create a desirable solution. The residents seemed pleased with this prospect. The City traffic engineer indicated that the City also found this proposal acceptable. Temporary traffic from existing dwelling along Arnold Road would have to continue utilizing Arnold and Schaffer Roads during construction of the proposed project, however after Schaffer Road is relocated to the proposed location existing Schaffer Road could be abandoned and rededicated to the adjacent landowners. A portion of Arnold Road is proposed to remain open as a pedestrian bike route. The relocated Schaffer Road would link Graham Road to the eastern limits of existing Arnold Road providing a section of the needed north south traffic route from Rock Prairie Road to Graham Road. Traffic generated by the proposed project would access Graham Road limiting increased traffic loading into the residential streets within the Edelweiss Subdivision. The residents expressed their comfort with this proposal as well as the developer. A development agreement between the City and the developer was discussed as a possible mechanism to insure and require that the developer constructed proposed Schaffer Road relocation in total across the subject tract to allow existing Schaffer Road and Arnold Road to be closed. The developer agreed in concept with this proposition. In conclusion, the meeting with residents and the developer seemed to ease the tension somewhat and allowed to reassurances that traffic increase could be handled in a satisfactory manner as well as limiting traffic impact upon adjacent subdivision. The issue of property devaluation was not settled and as previously stated will become ultimately the decision of the appropriate governing bodies. It is therefore our request that the Planning and Zoning Commission be scheduled to review and consider the Rezoning of the subject property as referenced above. Respectfully Submitted, Donald D. Garrett, P.E., R.P.L.S. Garrett Engineering FEE-24-96 SAT 05 :52 At4 NANCY. Cf2000H 409 6931019 P. 01 r ~,; :e `I~CS'IJIZIG~E CO~E~Z,S~E`E`.t` ~Vartcy couch ~LL~1~I2~`Y, IBC 409/b96-0921 teCe 409/b93-1019 fa.~ DATES 02123!96 77ME: 3:30 PM NUIVV~BER OF PAGES ~TCLUDlNG COVER: 2 T®: Scott Atkiwson PAX: 776-6187 ]FROM: Nancy Crouch COPY: ~e G~~ '' `,MESSAGE: FAX: FAX: `7 6 `~ ~~ ~ ~ `~ ~ Here's a proposed agenda foz the mecLiuug we discussed with tt~e honleowncrs, the city and the developer of the 50 acrea property at the comer of Schaffer and Gt'aham Rds. This is just a dzaft, so feel Exec to make suggestions or call with questions. FEB-~4-9~ SAT 05e5~ A~1 NANCY. CROUCH 4O9 6931©19 P.©2 4~ Y a ~ Y A ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ v4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ +~ ts~ .J an tli ~• ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ °z ~ ~ ~ ,~ cn '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~° ~ a" ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ c. ~ e ~ ~• °" ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~~~ ~~~ o ~- p ~ ~ ~ H N -+~ V1 :1t ~ U V1 L/1 Q :d ~. y 2 e 0 2 0 y c~ ., n: y °''' v ~i a OO D STAFF MEETING. Schaffer & Graham Road Rezoning Staff attending: Jane Kee, irley Volk, Natalie Thomas, Ed Hard & Sabine Kuenzel. (Kent Laza attended the meeting for the first few minutes.) Staff met on Thursday, September 28, 1995 to discuss the possible rezoning request and development proposal for the property located on the northeast corner of the Graham and Schaffer Road intersection by Joe Courtney. In determining staffs recommendation for future platting and rezoning requests, the following. issues were identified: MONETARY ISSUES: -- The City's abandonment of Schaffer Road to allow the developer to re-align this roadway in order to incorporate it into the overall development. -- City's participation in the construction or improvement of Schaffer Road. -- Dedication of the right-of--way for Arnold Road. -- Construction of Arnold Road. -- City's reconstruction of Graham Road through a C.I.P. bond program. OVERALL CONCERNS: _ The first questions that must be answered in order to make any recommendations or meet further with the developer are where did the right-of--way for Arnold and Schaffer Road come from? Before the City can begin to negotiate the re-alignment of Schaffer Road, we must determine if it was originally dedicated from this tract or from the adjacent property. We must also determine if Arnold Road is a dedicated public right-of--way, does the County have any information on this road and did they maintain it when it was outside the city limits? Shirley will contact Joe Courtney to let him know that we need the right-of--way information on Arnold and Schaffer Roads before we continue any further. (Done 9/29/95; Joe Courtney's checking on this.) _ Arnold Road must be dedicated and built with this development because it is on the Thoroughfare Plan. The only question is possible alignment issues and the possibility of the City participating in the cost of constructing this road. _ Ed expressed concern with the alignment of Schaffer Road and its connection to Arnold Road. There are other possibilities such as extending Hasselt to connect to Arnold Road or placing a curve in Schaffer Road to connect with Arnold to have a continuous collector street with the minimum radius requirements in the Subdivision Regulations. (Schaffer & Arnold Roads should be a 60' right-of--way.) The engineering department could put estimates together on the cost of these roadways to determine how much the City would be required to contribute toward the construction of these roads if the City decides to participate in Arnold Road. ,,., Schaffer & Graham Rezoning Staff Meeting 9-28-95 Page 2 of 2 _ Iiasselt or Arnold has to be a collector. If we still have the right-of--way of Arnold Road, we could construct that portion of the street and require the developer to extend it through his property. With this scenario or not, there may still be the possibility of participating in the construction of Arnold Road based on the recommendations in the impact studies. _ If the re-alignment of Schaffer is not acceptable to the Edelweiss Estates (Steve Arden), an alternative is for them to participate in the construction of Schaffer in its present location. _ Staff agreed that in the last predevelopment meeting with the potential developer, staff committed to recommend approval of participating in the construction of Schaffer Road. _ The entire property owned by Mr. Schaffer (not just the two tracts which have been identified) must be included in the rezoning request or staff cannot recommend approval of the request. (The entire property must also be included in the preliminary plat in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations.) _ Determine what the intentions of the drainage right-of--way area that runs parallel with Schaffer Road in the re-alignment plan next to the existing homes in Edelweiss. Staff is not sure if it will be allowed there depending on what it is for and what it will look like. _ Staff is concerned with lots fronting on Graham Road and the parking it will encourage along the roadway. The street that runs parallel to Graham Road should be realigned so that there are double frontage lots that will back up to Graham Road and delete the proposed alley. _ Regardless of the location of Schaffer Road, it should be constructed in its entirety and not in phases as this property develops. Staff is open to the possibility of phasing the development and delaying the construction of Schaffer Road until a future phase in the development. ® A development agreement seems inevitable concerning the development of this property. _ ®nce staff has additional information on the rights-of--way of Schaffer and Arnold Road, another staff meeting will be scheduled to include Veronica and Kent to determine what staffs recommendations will be on the rezoning and platting of the property. ,~ ,~ . s _' " r HIKE-BIKE TRAILS, AND THE LIKE. WE FEEL 'THAT -THE EASE OF MAINTENANCE ISSUE; "CAN` BE ADIIRESSED AS LONG AS THE AREAS D.O Nt~T REMAIN IN THEIR PRESENT CONDITION. , , ,.-. ~, _~ SAM ACCESS TO THE PARKS MAY NOT BE AS CONVENIENT AND SAFE AS IT COULD BE WITH AN INTERNAL CONNECTION BUT IT WOULD STILL BE AVAILABLE ALONG THE MAIN ARTERIALS. IF YOU'LL RECALL, THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL IS LOCATED HERE, SOUTHWOOD ATHLETIC PARK HERE, AND EDELWEIS PARK IS HERE. THE BIKE PATH WILL END AT THIS POINT, AND IF THE REQUIRED COLLECTORS ARE RELOCATED TO THE EAST, SCIiAFFER AND ARNOLD WILL NO LONGER FUNCTION AS ROADS. THEREFORE, IF THERE IS NO INTERNAL CONNECTION OF--RESIDENTIAL STREETS, PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE TRAFFIC WILL BE .FORCED ONTO GRAHAM ROAD AND VICTORIA RATHER THAN USE LOCAL STREETS. THE REQUEST ALSO CURRENTLY DOES NOT SHOW COMPLAINCE WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN, WHICH SHOWS ANORTH-SOUTH COLLECTOR FOLLOWING THE SHCAFFER ROAD RIGHT OF WAY AND AN EAST-WEST COLLECTOR BEGINNING AT SCRAPPER AND CONTINUING TO THE EAST. STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THAT A FUTURE PLAT SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND SHOW ANORTH-SOUTH COLLECTOR AS WELL AS A CONNECTING EAST-WEST COLLECTOR 2. THAT A MASTER PLAT SHOW A REASONABLE PHASING TO ENSURE THE COLLECTORS ARE BUILT AS NEEDED 3. THAT THERE BE ACCESS TO SCRAPPER ROAD ALONG THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 4. THAT ACCESS TO THE CORNER INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY BE MAINTAINED SAM SLIDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY ABOUT 2 YEARS AGO AND IS NOW BEING CONSIDERED FOR A DUPLEX AND SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. IT IS DIVIDED INTO TWO PORTIONS BY A CREEK AND THE DUPLEX PORTION (SHOWN IN THE RED) IS TO BE LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CREEK WITH THE REMAINING 17 ACRES OF SINGLE FAMILY (SHOWN IN THE ORANGE) TO BE NORTH OF THE CREEK. THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD ALLOW A MA~GMUM OF 290 DUPLEX UNITS AND JUST OVER 100 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. THE PROPERTY IS BOUNDED BY GRAHAM ROAD TO THE SOUTH, SCRAPPER ROAD TO THE WEST, AND ARNOLD ROAD TO THE NORTH. GRAHAM ROAD WILL SERVE AS THE MAIN ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BUT ACCESS DRIVES TO INDIVIDUAL LOTS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. l _ ..-'FHE""PR~OPHRT'Y~IS-LOGATED.=,IUST-EAST OF-THE EXISTING. SHAFFER.ROADr,.RIGH~'.-OF-WAY . --.-..._. SAND SOUTH°OF ARNOLD ROAD. BOTH STREETS ARE SUBSTANDARD. THERE IS AN INDUSTRIAL M-2 SITE ON THE CORNER OF GRAHAM AND SCFIAFFER WITH A VACANT M-1 PIECE THAT BELONGS TO THE GERG RESEARCH FACILITY. THIS IS AN IMPROVED DRAINAGE CHANNEL THAT FORMS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY AREA IN EDELWEIS AND THE MORE INTENSE ZONING TO THE SOUTH. THAT CREEK CONTINUES IN ITS NATURAL CONDITION THROUGH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WILL SEPARATE THE DUPLEXES FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY. THIS PORTION OF ARNOLD ROAD TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY IS THE FUTURE HIKE AND BIKESYSTEM THAT IS GOING IN AS A PART OF THE EDELWEIS SUBDIVISION. WHEN THAT SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED IN 1992, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LMTS. THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIlVIE DID NOT GO BEYOND THE CITY LMTS AND DID NOT SHOW ARNOLD ROAD AS A COLLECTOR. WITH THE CONVERSION OF ARNOLD TO THE HII~E AND BIKE TRAIL ANY VEHICULAR MOVEMENT TO THE EAST WOULD HAVE BEEN CUT OFF. IT WAS THEREFORE AGREED AT THAT TIME TO CONTINUE TWO LOCAL STREETS TO SCRAPPER RATHER THAN CUL-DE- SAC THEM. SCRAPPER ITSELF WAS OUTSIDE THE CITY LMTS AT THE TIME AND ITS CONDITION WAS THEREFORE NOT ADDRESSED AT THE TIIVIE EDELWEIS WAS APPROVED. THE JiJNIOR HIGH THAT FRONTS ON ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD IS LOCATED HERE AND SOUTHWOOD ATHLETIC PARK ALSO EXTENDS FROM THE EXISTING ARNOLD ROAD TO ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD. THERE IS A PARK THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING PUT IN WITH THE EDELWEIS SUBDIVISION. THE AREA TO THE EAST IS CURRENTLY ZONED AG/OPEN AND IS REFLECTED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE LAND USE PLAN. BEYOND THE VACANT TRACTS, THERE IS THE THE CITY'S UTILITY SERVICE CENTER LOCATED ON THIS TRACT. THIS IS BIRMINGHAM WHICH EXTENDS OFF OF THE HIGHWAY 6 FRONTAGE ROAD AND CURRENTLY DEAD-ENDS INTO THE FACILITY. AREA SHOT STANDING ON SCRAPPER LOOKING ACROSS THE PROPERTY TOWARD GRAHAM ROAD. GRAHAM WAS RECENTLY ANNEXED AND IS A MINOR ARTERIAL THAT DOES NOT YET MEET MINOR ARTERIAL STANDARDS. IT HAS RECENTLY BEEN UPGRADED SOMEWHAT BUT IS SCHEDULED IN 1999 TO BRING IT UP TO MINOR ARTERIAL STANDARDS. AT THAT TIME IT WILL BE ADEQUATE TO HANDLE THE FULL BUILD-OUT SCENARIO AS SHOWN ON THE LAND USE PLAN. AREA SHOTS WE DO HOWEVER HAVE A CONCERN REGARDING THE CONDITION OF SHAFFER AND ARNOLD ROADS. LOOKING NORTH UP SCRAPPER ROAD TOWARD THE SCHOOL -THE STREET IS SUBSTANDARD BOTH IN WIDTH AND IN MATERIALS. THE FIRST PORTION OF THAT ROAD IS PAVED TO ACCOMMODATE TRUCK TRAFFIC TO THE INDUSTRIAL SITE BUT THE ENTIl2E ROAD IS IN NEED OF AN UPGRADE. AREA SHOT FURTHER UP SCRAPPER LOOKING IN THE SAME DIRECTION SHOWING THE ROW OF HOUSES THAT BACK UP TO THE 70' BUFFER EASEMENT. AREA SHOT LOOKING EAST DOWN ARNOLD ROAD ACROSS THE BACK OF THE PARK PROPERTY -THIS ROAD IS ALSO SUBSTANDARD. AREA SHOT STANDING ON HASSELT, WHCIH IS ONE OF THE TWO RESIDENTIAL STREETS THAT CURRENTLY CONNECTS UP TO SCRAPPER ROAD. HASSELT CONNECTS THROUGH TO VICTORIA ON THE OTHER END, BUT ASTER, THE STREET TO THE SOUTH PARALLEL TO THIS ONE, IS CUL-DE-SACED ON THE WEST END. STANDARDS SLIDE APPLICANTS IN A REZONING REQUEST NEED TO SHOW THAT THE PROPOSAL MEETS THREE MAIN CRITERIA, ALL 3 OF WHICH ARE COMPONENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THEY HAVE. TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND USE PLAN, DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, AND WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. THE REZONING WOULD MAKE POSSIBLE ROUGHLY 400 UNITS, WHICH MEETS THE LAND USE PLAN.. TO GIVE YOU A POINT OF COMPARISON, A BUILD-OUT UNDER THE STANDARD R-1 SINGLE FAMII,Y WOULD ALLOW UP TO 300 UNITS. THE REQUEST ALSO MEETS MANY OF TIC CITY'S DEVLOPMENT POLICIES AND GOOD DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAT WOULD ENSURE THAT THEY ARE ALL MET. THE LAND USES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT USES. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WOULD PREVENT CONGESTION, PROVIDE SIDEWALKS AND BIKE LANES, ENSURE SAFETY STANDARDS, AND PROMOTE GOOD SITE DESIGN. IN OTHER WORDS THERE ARE SEVERAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS ALREADY IN PLACE THAT COVER MOST OF THE DEVLEOPMENT GOALS. F AT THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING WE EXPRESSED CONCERN FOR THE FACT THAT THE THE ITEMS SHOWN IN RED ON THIS SLIDE WERE NOT MET YET, AND FOR THE FACT THAT THE REQUEST DOES NOT CURRENTLY SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. THE COMMISSION EXPRESSED CONCERN REGARDING THESE ISSUES AND THEREFORE VOTED TO RECOMMEND DENIAL. FOR THESE REASONS, I'M GOING TO CONCENTRATE ON THOSE ISSUES AND PROPOSE SOME SOLUTIONS. IN A NUTSHELL, THE CONCERNS RELATE TO SAFE AND CONVENIENT PEDESTRIAN BIKE MOVEMENTS ESPECIALLY TO PARKS AND SCHOOLS, EMERGENCY ACCESS WITHIN THE IlVINiEDIATE AREA, EASE OF MAINTENANCE, AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. T-FARE PLAN THIS IS THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED IN MARCH OF 1994. ORIENT -VICTORIA WHERE IT HITS GRAHAM - EDELWEIS ABUTS SCRAPPER ROAD - SUBJECT PROPERTY - ARNOLD ROAD. WHICH SHOWS A NORTH/SOUTH COLLECTOR IN THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE EXISTING SCRAPPER ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT ALSO SHOWS AN EAST-WEST COLLECTOR EXTENDING TO THE EAST FROM THE POINT AT WHICH SCRAPPER INTERSECTS IT. THE SCHAFFER/ARNOLD SYSTEM WILL EVENTUALLY CONTINUE TO THE EAST TO CONNECT WITH THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF THE UTILITY SERVICE CENTER DRIVE AND FUNNEL BACK OUT ONTO ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD. SAM THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO PROVIDE THAT COLLECTOR SYSTEM. THAT SYSTEM CAN BE PROVIDED IN ONE OF TWO WAYS. THE DEVELOPER CAN EITHER IlVIPROVE THE EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY. THE UPGRADE WOULD PROBABLY REQUIRE SOME ADDITIONAL PROPERTY DEDICATION AND THEN BRINGING THE ROADS UP TO STANDARD. THE SECOND OPTION WOULD BE TO RELOCATE SCRAPPER TO THE EAST. STAFF DOES NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE RELOCATION BECAUSE THE COLLECTORS ON THE T- FARE PLAN ARE INTENDED TO BE FLEXIBLE ~ THE BLUE LINE ON THE SLIDE REPRESENTS A POSSIBLE LOCATION OF THAT NORTH-SOUTH COLLECTOR. IF THIS OPTION IS CHOSEN, IT WOULD LEAVE THESE PORTIONS OF ARNOLD AND SCRAPPER IN THEIR PRESENT STAE, WHICH FROM A MAINTENANCE STANDPOINT IS UNDESIREABLE. IN ORDER TO ADDRESS EASE OF MAINTENANCE ISSUES, THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE PORTIONS OF fi' THE EXISTING ROW'S THAT WILL NOT BE CONVERTED TO COLLECTORS,. THESE AREAS, FOR EXAMPLE, COULD BE ABANDONED TO BE USED FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES, MORE _, ~, ,~ 1 ~ ~ - ~-. - //~~ ~ ,r J .. ~ t ~ ~ ~ G f _, _~ //~~ '^~ i r y~„ ~ ~ SAM SLIDE ;:~ ~~-'ice%!-~ ~ - _ ~,~ 1.~ ~ ~ _ - ~- THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY ABOUT 2 YEARS AGO AND IS NOW BEING CONSIDERED FOR A DUPLEX AND SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. IT IS DIVIDED INTO TWO PORTIONS BY A CREEK AND THE DUPLEX PORTION IS TO BE LOCATED SOUTH OF THE CREEK yUI=1'H~~'I'I~ REn![AII~I~NG 17 ACRES OF SINGLE FAMILY BE NORTH OF THE' CREE_.,,~ THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD ALLOW A MA~GMUM OF :---- __ 290 DUPLEX UNITS AND JUST OVER 100 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. THE PROPERTY IS BOUNDED BY GRAHAM ROAD TO THE SOUTH, SCRAPPER ROAD TO THE WEST, AND ARNOLD ROAD TO THE NORTH. GRAHAM ROAD WILL SERVE AS THE MAIN ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BUT ACCESS DRIVES TO INDIVIDUAL LOTS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED THE DEVELOPMENT WILL NEED A COLLECTOR ROAD SYSTEM TO BRING TRAFFIC FROM LOCAL STREETS TO :GRAHAM. THIS SYSTEM COULD BE LOCATED WITHIN THE EXITING SCRAPPER AND ARNOLD RIGHTS OF WAY BUT THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A REQUIltEMENT. THE JUNIOR HIGH AND SOUTHWOOD ATHLETIC PARK,ARE LOCATED-TO~ THH NORTH, NEW SINGLE FAMILY IN EDELWEIS ESTATES, IS LOCATED ACROSS FROM THE PROPOSED R-lA TO THE WEST. THE MASTER PLAN FOR THAT SUBDIVISION_SHOWS TWO RESIDENTIAL ----- STREETS THAT WERE CONTINUED THROUGH TO SCRAPPER ROAD. THESE CONNECTIONS _ __ -__ _. WERE CREATED. AT THE TIME THE PLAN WAS APPROVED IN AN EFFORT TO ALLOW FOR i 1 ~ ;~ SOME RESIDENTIAL EAST-WEST MOVEMENT -TO RE f y/ 2 y r -PLACE ARNQLD ROAD: IF YOU'LL -., _~ 1v ,~ RECALL ANROLD ROAD IS TO BE CONVERTED TO A HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. THE ~~ "~. _. ,~= CONNECTION IS NEEDED FOR SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS, EASE OF MAINTENANCE, AND FUTURE BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO BOTH SOUTHWOOD ATHLETIC PARK AND THE EDELWEIS PARK. ANY FUTURE CONTINUATION IS NEEDED FOR THE SAME REASONS BUT IT WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE TWO ROADS. THERE'S A 70' BUFFER EASEMENT LOCATED BEHIND THE LAST ROW OF SINGLE FAMII.,Y AND A VACANT INDUSTRIAL TRACT THAT IS PART- OF THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL SITE LOCATED ACROSS FROM THE PROPOSED DUPLEX ZONING. THERE IS VACANT A-O ZONING TO THE SOUTH ACCROSS GRAHAM ROAD AND IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST. BOTH OF THESE VACANT AREAS ARE REFLECTED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE LAND USE PLAN. AREA SHOTS LOOKING NORTH UP SCRAPPER ROAD TOWARD THE SCHOOL - TIC STREET IS SUBSTANDARD BOTH IN WIDTH AND IN MATERIALS. THE FIRST PORTION OF THAT ROAD IS PAVED TO ACCOMMODATE TRUCK TRAFFIC TO THE INDUSTRIAL SITE. ~ '~'~ ~~~~~~`~'~ ~ l.l!'~''w~~~Lx. ~f~~~`L~~~. ~~`~ ~7'CWC~•~-'1 ~i~~"~f.f'7k?,?F,~~.~t~ ~u~d. 7°(,~€.~' Ll~il.: `l-s ~." ~ -r'"9~, V~L.G-7 )v~?;~.~ ~:1~'~G~ay~ ` ,,~,,a.;:,.~._.F~_VVV~r`- ~F' '+"..~' e~i..~'~ ,-7 ~,e.,~" ~ ~`~' ~. '~-~.~ ~'' ~`~' „g-~'~e f..~- ~, ~ rJ f F^ lI t ~-U~.....rs ,~ AREA SHOT. FURTHER UP SCRAPPER LOOKING IN THE SAME DIRECTION SHOWING THE ROW OF HOUSES THAT BACK. UP TO THE 70' BUFFER EASEMENT. AREA SHOT LOOKING EAST DOWN ARNOLD ROAD ACROSS THE BACK OF THE PARK PROPERTY -THIS ROAD IS ALSO SUBSTANDARD AREA SHOT STANDING ON .SCRAPPER LOOKING ACROSS THE PROPERTY TOWARD GRAHAM ROAD. GRAHAM WAS RECENTLY ANNEXED AND IS A MINOR ARTERIAL THAT DOES NOT YET MEET MINOR ARTERIAL STANDARDS. IT HAS RECENTLY BEEN UPGRADED SOMEWHAT BUT IS SCHEDULED IN 1999 TO BRING IT UP TO MINOR ARTERIAL STANDARDS. AT THAT TIME IT WILL BE ADEQUATE. TO HANDLE THE FULL BUILD-OUT SCENARIO AS SHOWN ON THE LAND USE PLAN. AREA SHOT STANDING ON HASELT, WHCIH IS ONE OF THE TWO RESIDENTIAL STREETS THAT WAS DESIGNED TO CONNECT UP TO SCRAPPER ROAD WITH THE CLOSING OF ARNOLD ROAD TO THE WEST. HASSELT CONNECTS THROUGH TO VICTORIA, BUT ASTER, THE STREET TO THE SOUTH PARALLEL TO THIS ONE, IS CUL-DE-SACED ON THE WEST END. STANDARDS SLIDE APPLICANTS IN A REZONING REQUEST NEED TO SHOW THAT THE PROPOSAL MEETS THREE MAIN CRITERIA, ALL 3 OF WHICH ARE COMPONENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THEY HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND USE PLAN, DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, AND WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. THE REZONING WOULD MAKE POSSIBLE ROUGHLY 400 UNITS, WHICH MEETS THE LAND USE PLAN. TO GIVE YOU A POINT OF COMPARISON, A BUILD-OUT UNDER THE STANDARD R-1 SINGLE FAMILY WOULD ALLOW UP TO 300 UNITS. THE REQUEST ALSO MEETS MANY OF THE CITY'S DEVLOPMENT POLICIES AND .GOOD DESIGN OF 'THE SUBDIVISION PLAT WOULD ENSURE THAT THEY ARE ALL MET. THE LAND USES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT USES. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WOULD PREVENT CONGESTION, PROVIDE SIDEWALKS AND BIKE LANES, ENSURE SAFETY STANDARDS, AND PROMOTE GOOD SITE DESIGN. IN OTHER WORDS THERE ARE SEVERAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS ALREADY IN PLACE THAT COVER MOST OF THE DEVLEOPMENT GOALS. THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE WITH ACCESS TO PARKS. WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE DIRECT ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AND THEREFORE PARK ACCESS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. WITH THE REZONING. T-FARE PLAN THE REQUEST ALSO CURRENTLY DOES NOT SHOW COMPLAINCE WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN, WHICH SHOWS ANORTH-SOUTH COLLECTOR FOLLOWING THE SHCAFFER ROAD RIGHT OF WAY AND AN EAST-WEST COLLECTOR BEGINNING AT SCRAPPER AND CONTINUING TO THE EAST. STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. THAT A FUTURE PLAT SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND SHOW ANORTH-SOUTH COLLECTOR AS WELL AS A CONNECTING EAST-WEST COLLECTOR 2. THAT A MASTER PLAT SHOW A REASONABLE PHASING TO ENSURE THE COLLECTORS ARE BUILT AS NEEDED -~~~ 3. THAT THERE BE ACCESS TO SCRAPPER ROAD ALONG THE °INGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT 4. THAT ACCESS TO THE CORNER INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY BE MAINTAINED ~.~ ~ r ~ ~ <- ry r [ ~, f ]] ,~_ ~. ~'~ i ~~, J Y ,~ r,J --~ '~ F ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~" ~~ A LOT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THIS ITEM WAS TABLED SO IF YOU'LL BARE WITH ME I'D LIKE TO TRY TO CLARIFY ALL OF THE FACTS SURROUNDING THIS CASE AND THEN.. DISCUSS YOUR OPTIONS. THE REQUEST AS YOU KNOW IS FOR 33 ACRES OF R-2 DUPLEX ZONING (SHOWN IN THE RED) AND 17 ACRES OF R-lA ZONING (SHOWN IN THE ORANGE). THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED JUST EAST OF THE EXISTING SHAFFER ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SOUTH OF ARNOLD ROAD. BOTH STREETS ARE SUBSTANDARD. GRAHAM ROAD RUNS ALONG THE SOUTHERN FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS SUBSTANDARD AS WELL BUT IS SCHEDULED FOR AN UPGRADE TO MINOR ARTERIAL STANDARDS IN 1999. THERE IS AN INDUSTRIAL M-2 SITE ON THE CORNER OF GRAHAM AND SCHAFFER WITH A VACANT M-1 PIECE THAT BELONGS TO THE GERG RESEARCH FACILITY. THIS IS AN IMPROVED DRAINAGE CHANNEL THAT FORMS A BUFFER BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY AREA IN EDELWEIS AND THE MORE INTENSE ZONING TO THE SOUTH. THAT CREEK CONTINUES IN ITS NATURAL CONDITION THROUGH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WILL SEPARATE THE DUPLEXES FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY. THIS PORTION OF ARNOLD ROAD TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY IS THE FUTURE HIKE AND BIKE SYSTEM THAT IS GOING IN AS A PART OF THE EDELWEIS SUBDIVISION. WHEN THAT SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED IN 1992, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIlVIITS. THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT WAS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME DID NOT GO BEYOND THE CITY LIMITS AND DID NOT SHOW ARNOLD ROAD AS A COLLECTOR. WITH THE CONVERSION OF ARNOLD TO THE HII~E AND BIKE TRAIL ANY VEHICULAR MOVEMENT TO THE EAST WOULD HAVE BEEN CUT OFF. IT WAS THEREFORE AGREED AT THAT TIME TO CONTINUE TWO LOCAL STREETS TO SCRAPPER RATHER THAN CUL DE- SAC THEM. SCRAPPER ITSELF WAS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIlVIITS AT THE TIME AND ITS CONDITION WAS THEREFORE NOT ADDRESSED AT THE TIME EDELWEIS WAS APPROVED. THE JUNIOR HIGH THAT FRONTS ON ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD IS LOCATED HERE AND SOUTHWOOD ATHLETIC PARK ALSO EXTENDS FROM THE EXISTING ARNOLD ROAD TO ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD. THERE IS A PARK THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING PUT IN WITH THE EDELWEIS SUBDIVISION. THE AREA TO THE EAST IS CURRENTLY ZONED AG/OPEN WITH THE CITY'S UTILITY SERVICE CENTER LOCATED ON THIS TRACT. THIS IS BIltMINGHAM WHICH EXTENDS OFF OF THE HIGHWAY 6 FRONTAGE ROAD AND CURRENTLY DEAD-ENDS INTO THE FACILITY. STANDARDS SLIDE IIJ ORDER FOR A REZONING TO BE CONSIDERED A SOUND DECISION, AN APPLICANT MUST SHOW THAT THE REQUEST MEETS TIC CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT PLAN CONSISTS OF 3 MAJOR COMPONENTS -THE LAND USE PLAN, DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, AND THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. THE REQUEST IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND USE PLAN, WHICH REFLECTS THIS AREA AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE REZONING WOULD MAKE POSSIBLE APPROXIMATELY 400 UNITS. TO GIVE YOU A POINT OF COMPARISON, ABUILD-OUT SCENARIO OF THIS SAME AREA UNDER AN R-1 ZONING WOULD ALLOW UP TO 300 UNITS. THE REQUEST ALSO MEETS MANY OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND GOOD DESIGN OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAT WOULD ENSURE THAT THEY ARE ALL MET. THE LAND USES ARE COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT USES. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WOULD PREVENT CONGESTION, PROVIDE SIDEWALKS AND BIKE LANES, ENSURE SAFETY STANDARDS, AND PROMOTE GOOD SITE DESIGN. IN OTHER WORDS THERE ARE SEVERAL ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS ALREADY IN PLACE ^ DEVELOPMENT GOALS. THAT COVER MOST OF THE r r ~ ~_ ~~ ~ ~ "5 d " ~`"~.~~~"~"~.~ :,.~ ~ F ~ . /~ ° , n j~ a ., ~ Cl 'c'~ i~"~~ '1.~ v. ~ ~ //- // ' ~ ~ ~ _ ~, ~ ~~ L SAM ~~'..~ WE HAVE SOME CONCERN RELATING TO ACCESS TO THE PARKS IN THE AREA. WHILE THERE WILL BE ACCESS ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES THE POSSIBILITY OF INTERNAL MOVEMENT BETWEEN EDELWEIS AND SOUTHWOOD ATHLETIC AND BETWEEN THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND- EDELWEISS PARK HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN. z~CCESS TO TIIiEE~E TWQ~PARI~S 1S~0T Cc~F O~BUT=I'T IS NOT AS~C(~N~1ENI~NT AS IT COULD BE. -~ A MORE SERIOUS CONCERN IS THAT THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE CITY'S THOROUGHFARE PLAN. T-FARE PLAN THIS IS THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED IN MARCH OF 1994. ORIENT -VICTORIA WHERE IT HITS GRAHAM - EDELWEIS ABUTS SCRAPPER ROAD - SUBJECT PROPERTY - ARNOLD ROAD. WHICH SHOWS A NORTH/SOUTH COLLECTOR IN THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THE EXISTING SCRAPPER ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT ALSO SHOWS AN EAST-WEST COLLECTOR EXTENDING TO THE EAST FROM THE POINT AT WHICH SCRAPPER INTERSECTS IT. THE SCHAFFER/ARNOLD SYSTEM WILL EVENTUALLY CONTINUE TO THE EAST TO CONNECT WITH THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF THE UTILITY SERVICE CENTER DRIVE AND FUNNEL BACK OUT ONTO ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD. SAM THE BLUE LINE ON THE SLIDE REPRESENTS A POSSIBLE LOCATION OF THAT NORTH- SOUTH COLLECTOR. THAT SYSTEM WILL CONTINUE EVENTUALLY TO CONNECT WITH THE USC DRIVE THAT CURRENTLY ENDS AT BHMNGHAM BUT WILL CONTINUE TO THE NORTH TOWARD ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD. DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE IS CURRENTLY NOT ADEQUATE, YOU HAVE A CHOICE AT THIS POINT -YOU CAN EITHER DENY THE REZONING BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT FURTHER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT THIS TIlVIE OR YOU COULD APPROVE THE REZONING WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS MET. STAFF RECOMMENDS STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE APPROVE THE REZONING WITH THESE CONDITIONS ~ ~~; i '7'°r ~~` ~_ THE MOST IMPORTANT CONDITIONS WOULD BE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND SOME TYPE OF GUARANTEE. IN ORDER TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE REZONING NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE UNTIL EITHER A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE EXECUTED OR A PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWING ,REASONABLE PHASING IS APPROVED. SAM THE COLLECTOR SYSTEM CAN BE PROVIDED IN ONE OF TWO WAYS. THE DEVELOPER CAN EITHER IMPROVE THE EXISTING RIGHTS-OF-WAY. THE UPGRADE WOULD PROBABLY REQUIltE SOME ADDITIONAL. PROPERTY DEDICATION AND THEN BRINGING THE ROADS UP TO STANDARD. THE SECOND OPTION WOULD BE TO RELOCATE SCRAPPER TO THE EAST. IF THIS IS DONE, THE EXISTING SCRAPPER AND A PORTION OF ARNOLD COULD BE ABANDONED TO BE USED FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES, MORE HIKE-BIKE TRAILS, AND THE LIKE. WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT IF THIS SECOND OPTION IS CHOSEN BY THE DEVELOPER THAT THE EXISTING AREAS BE CONVERTED AND NOT REMAIN GRAVEL ROADS. RECOMMENDATIONS STAFF WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THAT IF THE SOUTHERN SECTION OF THE EXISTING SCRAPPER IS ABANDONED, THAT THERE BE SOME TYPE OF ACCESS TO THE REAR OF THE GERG PROPERTY. RIGHT NOW THERE ARE TRUCKS THAT USE THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF SCRAPPER TO ACCESS THE REAR OF THE M-2. THAT ACCESS NEEDS TO REMAIN AVAILABLE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE M-1 DEVELOPS. RECOMMENDATIONS THIS LAST RECOMMENDATION TO CONNECT THE PROPOSED R-lA AREA TO THE EXISTING EDELWEIS ESTATES AREA HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AT LENGTH BY THE AREA HOME OWNERS, THE DEVELOPER, AND CITY STAFF. IT IS VERY MUCH AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE AREA HOMEOWNERS AND THEREFORE STAFF REVISITED THE RECOMMENDATION AND WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO YOU THAT MAY HELP YOU MAKE YOU DECISION. GOALS WHENEVER THE CITY STAFF RECEIVES A DEVELOPMENT REQUEST, WE REVIEW IT IN RELATION TO OUR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN EFFECT. WE ALWAYS LOOK FOR CONNECTION BETWEEN SUBDIVISIONS IN AN EFFORT TO M'ROVE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TIlVIE, PROVIDE LESS EXPENSIVE CITY SERVICES WHICH KEEP TAXES REASONABLY LOW, AND TO PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE MOBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY. OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS IN FACT SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE CONNECTIONS BE MADE. THESE GOALS ARE STILL IN FORCE AND WE FEEL THAT THEY ARE ALL STILL VALID. IN RESPONSE TO THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE AREA HOMEOWNERS, WE LOOKED AT THESE GOALS MORE CLOSELY AS THEY RELATE TO THIS PARTICULAR AREA. WE SPOKE WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE SANITATION, FIltE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS AND FOUND THE FOLLOWING: SANITATION AND POLICE HAD NO CONCERN FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA BUT EXPRESSED THAT THIS VARIATION NOT TO CONNECT SUBDIVISIONS SHOULD NOT BECOME COMMON PRACTICE. SAM ACCESS TO THE PARKS MAY NOT BE AS CONVENIENT AND SAFE AS IT COULD BE WITH AN INTERNAL CONNECTION BUT IT WOULD STILL BE AVAILABLE ALONG THE MAIN ARTERIALS. IF YOU'LL RECALL, THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL IS LOCATED HERE, SOUTHWOOD ATHLETIC PARK HERE, AND EDELWEIS PARK IS HERE. THE BIKE PATH WILL END AT THIS POINT, AND IF THE REQUIRED COLLECTORS ARE RELOCATED TO THE EAST, SCRAPPER AND ARNOLD WILL NO LONGER FUNCTION AS ROADS. THEREFORE, IF THERE IS NO INTERNAL CONNECTION OF RESIDENTIAL STREETS, PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE TRAFFIC WILL BE FORCED ONTO GRAHAM ROAD AND VICTORIA RATHER THAN USE LOCAL STREETS. THE AREA OF MOST CONCERN IS THE QUESTION OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE. WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO THE FIltE DEPARTMENT WHICH RESPNDS NOT ONLY TO FIRES BUT ALSO TO MEDICAL EMERGENCIES. THEY SENT TRUCKS OUT TO THE AREA TO TIME THE POTENTIAL DELAY THAT A DECISION NOT TO CONNECT COULD CAUSE. THEY FOUND THAT THE SECONDARY RESPONSE TO MEDICAL OR FIRE EMERGENCIES WOULD BE DELAYED. IT HAD BEEN MY ASSUMPTION THAT SECONDARY RESPONSE MEANT BACK- UP AND TI~REFORE NOT RELATED TO LIFE THREATENING SITUATIONS BUT THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE. ACCORDING TO THE FIltE CHIEF, CURRENTLY THE SECONDARY RESPONSE TIME COULD BE JUST AS CRITICAL IN GIVEN SITUATIONS AS THE FIRST RESPONSE. CURRENTLY, SECONDARY RESPONSE TIME TO THE DEVELOPED AREA IS 4 MINUTES 14 SECONDS. THE ACCEPTED STANDARD IS 4 MINUTES 30 SECONDS. IF SCRAPPER AND ASTER WERE TO BE CLOSED OFF, SECONDARY RESPONSE TIME TO THE AREA TO THE EAST WOULD BE INCREASED TO 5 NIlNITTES 11 SECONDS. TRAFFIC COUNTS WE'VE PUT OUT SOME COUNTERS ON HASSELT TO GET YOU AN IDEA OF THE CURRENT TRAFFIC VOLUMES. WE ALSO PUT TOGETI~R SOME PRELIMINARY NUMBERS OF THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC THAT MAY BE EXPECTED WITH A CONNECTION. WE PUT COUNTERS OUT ON VICTORIA, NORTH GRAHAM, AND HASSELT. THE COUNTERS ON HASSELT WERE CROSSED AN AVERAGE OF 290 TIMES A DAY. OUR PRELIMINARY STUDY SHOWS THAT THE TRAFFIC COULD INCREASE TO ROUGHLY 900 TO 1000 VEHICLES PER DAY. SOUTH KNOLL AREA WITH A CONNECTION, THE STREET MAY RESEMBLE THE TRAFFIC THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS AROUND THE SOUTH KNOLL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THIS IS A SLIDE OF THAT AREA. IT IS COMPARABLE IN NATURE TO THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING AROUND EDELWEIS. THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON HAINES AND LANGFORD COULD BE COMPARED TO THE POST DEVELOPMENT VOLUMES ON HASSELT. THERE .ARE OTHER AREAS LIKE DEXTER AND TIMBER WHERE THE TRAFFIC IS TWO TO THREE TIMES THE COUNTS ON LANGFORD BUT THAT IS NOT LIKELY TO OCCUR HERE. WHILE THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC WILL NOT CREATE A SITUATION SIMII,AR TO THE VERY HIGH TRAFFIC PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED ON SOME OF THOSE STREETS, THE IlViPACT OF A CONNECTION IS CERTAINLY SIGNIFICANT AND WILL CHANGE THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT OF HASSELT AND ASTER. WE UNDERSTAND FROM DISCUSSIONS WITH THE RESIDENTS OF THE TWO STREETS THAT THEY ARE OPPOSED TO ANY INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, MUCH LESS CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF RELATIVELY QUIET STREETS TO ONES RESEMBLING LANGFORD AND HAINES. RECOMMENDATIONS IT APPEARS TO STAFF THAT THE DECISION REGARDING THE CONNECTION BOILS DOWN TO A WEIGHING PROCESS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS VERSUS THE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WE DO FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT WHETHER OR NOT THE ZONING IS CONDITIONED ON A CONNECTION, THAT THE OTHER CONDITIONS DO NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INTEREST OF FURTHERING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. C~ARREi'T EN~~NE~RIN 4441 CARTER CREEK PARKWAY LSI~IITE 10iGINEERItIG E LANO SURVEYING AN, TEXAS 77302 - (40lf 848.2688 - (g8f1848-884 TO: ~~ o~ Cs,~lle o~. ~~ f..(n.,,~ Date: >.~«e.-n.,~h.~,~'t~ ~ l~cy~ RE: ~~. Pr~~ n~,~~~-ae Q n-C~ ('`vim e {~~,wL '2~p nA. We Are Sending You : ~ Hentivitlt Under Sep<~trate Cover The I=allowing: Copies Date Description l P~ru_R,r,,~,n r0 . ,, _ f-,o.~~a ~ ..._,.,..o Remlrks: By. E-~~ l -~-la,~e,~ ~: Received By: 4. T,~.l.f.f...l.J.J.f.J~ ~ITl'• OF ectLLE~E STATION ` ;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;'•;:::;:;:;:;•J- pEUELQPMENT ~EfdU1~ES •,- '.-~',-~'~"~°~'~'~'~'~-~~~-`•~•'-`•~•`•`•~-`-`• 1ldi TEXAS AVE i.J.!•P.f.'.J./././. r./.!•/.f.l.l.l.J.l.f.J.f././ f•J•J """`"t'`' ~~~~ ~~~ ,•J•J•!•!•,•f•J•f•rfa•f-f •f•f•r•J•f•f•nf•!•s•r .,.....:.v.~.g•t•t•t•t•~•i•ti•~•~n•~•v~•~•1•a.~.~.~.~~~• OOLLEGE STATION, TE?EAS 77840 ;~' ).;.J.J•r•,•J•r•f•!•J•!•!•f •r •r•; •J•!•!•!•!•!•, •J •f •J •J ~~r ~J•r~l•J•J•f•!•l.r•!•l.f •t •!J-!•!•!•!•J •!•f'J'f•/•J !•!•J•f•J•!-!•J•f•!•f•!•!•f •J•f J•/•J J•f•!•!•!•!•f•J •! „~~'.tzt..~.~i-v~ ~ ~ e~i acv s~!~~£:R4~1 ~`zT''-~.l.:.J.J.J.I.J.l.l.f.l•yl•l.f.f•l.i .J.J.tn„ ~'8 V~ f 7 ~ °Y - 'J V'71J ~~ tlJ~l:J~f~J~J:!*/~/ !~f•f !~f F~llJ -l~,,/•!RIy',t~ n ~~ ` 4l:JtlJtJJ`Jtf l~I•ftll J4h ItJ•J-~J-l-f~J•f ~4 ~4V~~ 764-S40f~ (A7C !•! . -.1. .,. ~,. ~.v, •J•!.l •f-l-J• l•1•t•4-\-••1 -f•/J-!•!J- { •/• "`~Z" ~ x ae "~ 5 /! '~ ~~ ~_ Apri115, 1996 Honorable Mayor Ringer And Councilmen City Of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842-9960 RE: Rezoning Of 50 Acre Tract Located On The Northeast Corner Of The Intersection Of Existing Schaffer Road And Graham Road (Joe Courtney Development). Honorable Mayor Ringer And Councilmen, The property referenced above was considered for rezoning at the council meeting of Apri111, 1996. As you know the developer's request was to rezone the subject property from AO to R-1 and R-2. The consideration and subsequent voting was broken into two parts. A vote was taken on the R 1 proposal and then a separate vote was taken on the proposed R 2 rezoning proposal. The out-come of Council's voting was the R 1 rezoning passed with the R 2 rezoning being defeated 3 to 2. Councilmen Kennady and Hickson did not attend the Council meeting referenced above and therefore we feel that our client did not receive the full review and consideration a complete council would provide. Due to the fact that the results of the voting were so close we feel it only fair that the "project" be bought back to Council as rapidly as possible for reconsideration by a "complete" Council. It is with this letter that we hereby respectfully request that Council allow under Zoning Ordinance Item 17.8 that the 180 day waiting period be waived and same rezoning be allowed back on agenda for the next earliest meeting of City Council for your reconsideration and subsequent revote on the rezoning issue. Thank you for your interest and consideration in this project as we feel it will be a quality project that would be in accordance with City policy and development practices that allow for a City we can all be proud of. Re ectfully Submitted, ~ ~ Ken °'Earl°' Havel (For Joe Courtney) ;,,SJ-.::U/UU lYlU1V Uc).:}~~-1`t1n ~lUy fS4U UU.IG vnn[.v.y L~livu t~li:aL ~~ gGg SpA ~'®~y '~ A!o : College Station Independent School District F 8 V tl Q ., ~ E~eQ'arce In E~utation....An Investment In ?6e future ~ ®~ ~FHT stet°°~ February 22, 1996 Mr. Steve Arden Brazosland Realty 4103 Texas Avenue Suite 100 Bryan, Texas 77802 Dear Mr. Arden: Post-It'" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 # of pages - 3 To ~ / Q ~ From ~ Co. Co. Oept. Phone # Fax# ~~ Fax# The College Station ISD Board of Trustees authorized the administration to formally negotiate for the acquisition of a school site not to exceed twenty acres. Out of seven properties o.,~"ered, t.1~.ere are four (4) properties that we believe are potentially suitable sites for the Intermediate School (Grades 5-6), that is planned to open in the fall, 1998. These sites are ident~ed on the attached information sheet. After negotiating a price for a property, the district may ultimately need to have a Phase I environmental site analysis performed, have geotechnical evaluation of soils done, and perhaps a drainage study prior to a final purchase commitment. Potential property owners would have to allow access to the property for this purpose. After reviewing the attached information, please .call me and let's get together within the next tiveek to discuss the properties you have ofJ`ered. Thank you. Sincerely, td Neal Assistant Superintendent for Business i8~~~vetatt st~eeti ~alle8e station, TlC 77844 JI1VI SCAi~ES, P1~.D. 409.764-6466 FCC 409-7&4-6492 Superintendent of 5choota `;2/6/96 14I®~ 09:00 FAX 409 846 0652 tiLZAGUJLAivU xr.eL- COLLEGE STATION INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT S1TE NEGOTIATION INFORMATION 1 a Proposers should be prepared to offer either a 20 acre, or a 15 acre tract. The CSISD desires to pay no more than current market value far a school site. A short list of four sites has been developed. CSISD reserves the right to receive or solicit other proposals on other properties anti! a final purchase commitment is made by the Board of Trustees. If a satisfactory financial arrangement cannot be negotiated, the District reserves the right to reject ail proposals and pursue other property in the area; or expand the target area for a site. 2~ CSISD believes that announcing the location of a school site immediately increases the value of surrounding property, and therefore owners of larger tracts may be motivated to o#fer a site at, or below, current market value. ~~~~ 3. CSISD betieves that development of roadways, sidewalks, and bringing utilities to serve a school site also increases the value of surrounding, and particularly adjacent properties, again encouraging owners of Larger tracts to offer a site at, ~- or below, current market value. ---~ -~ 4e CSISD wil[ entertain a proposal to purchase raw land, and contract directly for bringing utilities to the site, and building roadways/sidewalks required by the City, OR CSISD will entertain a proposal whereby an Owner/Developer offers price for an existing, fully developed situ as a part of an overall development, OR CSISD will entertain a proposal whereby the Owner/Developer offers a raw land price and site as a part of a proposed future development. CSISD will reimburse to the Owner/Developer apro-rata portion of the infrastructure development costs required by the City. The Owner/Developer would be required to submit auditable cost records to support the reimbursement, and payment to the Owner/Developer for the development costs would be made upon acceptance by the City. CS{SD would require contract language to insure completion of the infrastructure in advance of the need. 5. Provided a satisfactory proposal is presented, a final purchase commitment could be made as early as March 18th, but could occur later. The Board of Trustees also reserves the right to reject. all proposals. Any action to acquire a particular property will be in a regular, or called, open meeting of the Board of Trustees, and each property ®wner will be advised of the time and place of the meeting, Page 1 of 2 {];;'' ~fi/136 ~1®N 09.0(3 1~r1A ~il~ ts~b uoat Sites currently under consideration include: ~ m Approximate 56 acre site bounded on the south by S. Graham, Schaffer Road on the west, and Arnold Road on the north. Location of a site within this tract is flexible, and tracts on both the southern and northern .portions of this tract would be considered. 2. Approximately 20 acres in the Edelweiss development at the northwest corner of Mortier Drive and Edelweiss Drive tproposed street). 3o Approximately 20 acres, which is a portion of an approximately 68 acre tract with fron#age on S. Graham Road. A proposed extension of Eagle Avenue (from the .Cypress Meadows development) is proposed along the east property line, such that the property would. be on the southwest corner of the intersection of S. Graham and Eagle (pr1 P OO~~east ofetherintersectionaof S S. Graham would be approximately , Graham and Schaffer Roads. 4, Approximate 46 acre site located at the southeast corner of S. Graham and the proposed Victoria Avenue extension. The proposed Victoria Avenue extension -~ would follow the west property line. Location of a site within this tract is flexible. Page 2 of 2 From: Edwin Hard To: JKEE, SKUENZEL, JMIES Date: 3/5/96 4:07pm Subject: Schaffer - Emergency Access I spoke with the City of Houston's Traffic Engineer who oversees their Neighborhood Traffic Calming Section. He told me about three different emergency access alternatives they've used or considered. 1. Collapsable bollards. They don°t use these or recommend them for the same reason John spoke of. Their tests showed that the bollards break every time they are run over by a fire truck. They didn't like the idea of they or an HOA having to replace them everytime. 2. 911 Gates. They do use these but only have a few right now. After explaining our Edelweiss/Schaffer situation, he recommnded one of the these. 3. Rollover Devices. They don't have any of these yet, but do have a deisgn for one they've created in-house. It's basically a hump designed with growcrete and a layover curb. He said the key to it's success is the placement of vegetation to camoflage it. They haven't used this yet but seem excited about it`s prospects. He is sendng me all the information they have on the 911 gates and rollover growcrete. j 3 , ~ ? .~~ ~, ~ ;, ______ ~ s ., ° i d' "'Ts J e, ~----- t~='~ •C_ ~ ::fit ~.~r - - __ _-_ n ~,._. c.~ ~ `~ --- --- a ~, m _ ~ i ~~ ~.~ n .- O~ ~~ ~~J~ ,~ ~~ 2 U~. Gam- %-i~~L ~~~ - `~. `-yid ( ~ '?' ~~c°: ~-L~ :J ,~. ',~-- >-REET} BIKE TRAIL (NOT A 57REE7) ~ ARNf3LD R[) ~ ~ -, HASSEL7 ST i, ~ I , {~ w~ CG ~~ (72LaT5~ Q4 ' a ASTER DR ~ ~ ~ °~ h v V} I 1 Qt ~ K7 K 9 ~-- ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ y ~~ %~~, ,~ - ~i ~~v ~tAH EXIST 6'° 55 -- 'ii _ MH ' ~::~ -. fJ .;~f t'~J ~" ~~r ~1~'.l ~~ MH ~..~~, --'..,. H ~ '~~ . ~~!~ ' _.~. ` -- ;. ~ . ~~. - ;,. c _ ,~ . ,fir _ ~==._._ $ ~..~. / i c,.~ ii ~ ~ ~~~ ~~Z~ ~~~ w ~ ~ -- - i d.0 ACRES ( , g z ~ pa ,~ ~_ ~- ~„~ ~* ~ X144 4 '4 ~ 1 c,~ + i~ 36,000 SF 30,000 SF I ` - 4 ~°~ 'ii i /~ ,~ ~U E]IISTING 12' ~-. ~" 2 5' + + - -~- :~ ~ r -~ .~ ~ GRA AM RD ~4 - FH Q-059 FN Q-058 FH R-057 ~ ~~i~, . \~,~`~ EXISTING 12" WATER LINE ,s ~'~ ,, rid .,--~ ~ ~ ~. T~ ~~ ~ ,~ ", ` ~ `~~ ~.~ ~~- ~~ ~, ~~ ~ !`~~~ }~ Ji~ ~"~ ~~ -vp l i~ ' l t5di ,~ ~~t' Printed by Shirley Volk x/10/95 3:33pm From: Shirley Volk To: Jane Kee, Jim Callaway, Kent Laza, Natalie Thomas, Veronica Morgan Subject: fwd: Development-type questions ===NOTE====------=====5/09/95==1:45pm=====___________=_________=_____=______ Recently a VERY pre-development meeting was held about some duplex/patio home type development which would be abutted by Arnold Road, Schaffer Road and Graham Road. The question came up regarding what would be required as far as improvements to those 3 roads in order to get a plat approved in this area. While the question is still tentative at this time, apparently several staff members have talked to several different people about development in that area, so perhaps some consensus of opinion should be reached pretty soon, because it looks like sooner (rather than later) development is going to happen in that area, and to date, nobody has any type of answer! Not even a guess! Might help our credibility if we could have an answer or at least an idea the next time we hear the question. Another question which needs to be addressed immediately is the extension of 5. Kyle south to (as I°ve been telling people) connect with Lassie Lane. It has been pointed out to me in not very gentle language, that this type of extension would render the 8 acre Noonan tract worthless for development, and further, that a curve that steep in that short a spece is not feasible! We are meeting with some people from a company planning to develop that property on Wed. A.M., so be prepared to hear a great deal about that street extension at that time. None of it will be good! Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======5/09/95==3:lOpm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk CC: Jim Callaway, Kent Laza ............................................................................ we're prepared on the Kyle S. questions. As to the other, if the only access to these lots are via the streets you mentioned then I would anticipate some improvement be required. W/o seeing a layout it's hard for me to say more. Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==5/09/95==4:19pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Jane Kee CC: Jim Callaway, Kent Laza ............................................................................ There's the rub! How much improvement? 1000 developer cost? 1008 City cost? Some kind of participation? What about closing Arnold Road? (V mentioned something about that). All of these were questions at the meeting yesterday, and we had no answers - which was o.k., but now that the questions have been asked once, I guess it's time to think about possible answers in the pretty near future. Also, what about Kyle? Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======5/09/95==4:45pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk ~C: Jim Callaway, Kent Laza Arnold•Road•is~to be•closed•as•part~of•the•Edelweiss•Dev. Agreemnt.•I•think• you are expecting solid answers to questions that depend on different ...`„situations. We have general policies that we expect developer improvement for on-site stuff and with the Carter lake plat - developer improvement for off-site that supplies access (we'll see what CC does on Thurs. evening). In terms of participation that is always a question a developer can ask of our Council. Again w/o seeing any specifics on the Arnold thing I can't give more opinion that'this. Kyle is what ~ mentioned to yc~u earlier - I'm going to listen to what they say. Geor~Ball asked Jim too be there and Ji' said No.~ He's le.'ving that for me toJmake the/call. Peter I listlen, unl ss I hear somethin~ unusual'I will as~:~that th~~ dedicate the ROW~nd the ity will uild the street. I will NO,T offer phis until/'I hear mo.e about where th~ are in heir pra~ect planning. I w 1,1 also nit be able~to make that dec,2sion but only recommend a course of ton to C~. They w~`1 ulti ately decide thru the plattfing process. I ~r they dill also ttalk abou,~ platti~ig half tl~e ROW which we wila'NOT sup~Qrt. Our~subd. reg% don't ~llow it, ~' ------------------------------=--------------------------------------------- Paqe: 1 Priiztea by Shirley Volk 5/10/95 3:32pm From: Shirley Volk To: Jane Kee, Jim Callaway, Kent Laza, Natalie Thomas, Veronica Morgan Subject: fwd: Development-type questions ===NOTE====------=====5/09/95==1:45pm=====__________________________________ Recently a VERY pre-development meeting was held about some duplex/patio home type development which would be abutted by Arnold Road, Schaffer Road and Graham Road. The question came up regarding what would be required as far as improvements to those 3 roads in order to get a plat approved in this area. While the question is still tentative at this time, apparently several staff members have talked to several different people about development in that area, so perhaps some consensus of opinion should be reached pretty soon, because it looks like sooner (rather than later) development is going to happen in that area, and to date, nobody has any type of answer! Not even a guess! Might help our credibility if we could have an answer or at least an idea the next time we hear the question. Another question which needs to be addressed immediately is the extension of S. Kyle south to (as I've been telling people) connect with Lassie Lane. It has. been pointed out to me in not very gentle language, that this type of extension would render the 8 acre Noonan tract worthless for development, and further, that a curve that steep in that short a spece is not feasible! We are meeting with some people from a company planning to develop that property on Wed. A.M., so be prepared to hear a great deal about that street extension at that time. None of it will be good! Fwd=by:=Jane=Kee======5/09/95==3:lOpm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk CC: Jim Callaway, Kent Laza we're•prepared•on•the.Kyle.S..questions.•As•to•the•other,.if.the•only~access to these lots are via. he streets you mentioned then I would anticipate some improvement be required. W/o seeing a layout it's hard for me to say more. Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==5/09/95==4:19pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Jane Kee CC: Jim Callaway, Kent Laza ............................................................................ There's the rub! How much improvement? 100% developer cost? 1000 City cost? Some kind of participation? What about closing Arnold Road? (V mentioned something about that). All of these were questions at the meeting yesterday, and we had no answers - which was o.k., but now that the questions have been asked once, I guess it's time to think about possible answers in the pretty near future. Also, what about Kyle? Fwd=by:=Kent=Laza=====5/10/95==8:42am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk CC: Jane Kee ............................................................................ Regarding Arnold, Schaffer, and Graham Roads, don't we normally ask that a study be performed to show what impacts the new development will have on the roads and then base any oversizing on that report. Earl Havel came to me about 6 weeks ago asking about a development along Graham Road and I told him the City participation would depend on the traffic report. He indicated the traffic would be relatively light on Graham. That's where we left it. n~n~. , 2w~ ~ /~ ~~~~ /~ -~ ., 10/02/95 15:59 ^C 409 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS I~001 :k%k:k:k~:k:k:k:k:k:kW*:K:f:sk:k:k:k~%k:k:k:k~~* ax~::k ACTIVITY REPORT :k~:~: :k :k %k :k :k :k :k :k :k :k :k :k :k :}::k ~: %k :k * :k :k ~::k :k ~ :k :k TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX N0. 3442 CONNECTION TEL 9p7763230 CONNECTION ID START TIME 10!02 15:58 USAGE TIME 01'36 PAGES 2 RESULT OK F r ,: ,~^ .a o ,. ~~~~ ~, ~ ~ 9 ~ k"a y.... ``- } ~~~. n ~a~ i 1~ ~ ~ ~{~ ~ `.I >~ ` ~.' , z ~ ~°~ a `~~ ~ C ~, ~ ~o a, o ,.. ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ _r ~ ~ ~ 4~~ Q ~~ e ~~.,~, ~~ ~: "~,,, ~~ ~~ ,, ~ ~, ,~ ~~ , , 4,;~ ~_ ~.~ ~~, ~'~ h ~'~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~o,,~ ~1~, `~ ~. if / l ~. ~. Jar -. "~ f, / /} ~ ' ~.~• ~ / a PREDEVELOPMENT MEETING ~ SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 ~ - ~s ,~, ATTENDEES: Joe Courtney, Horace Shaffer, Don Garrett, Earl Havel Kent Laza, Sabine Kuenzel, Ed Hard, Natalie Thomas & Shirley Volk Subject: Rezoning of the Shaffer property located along the north side of Graham Road, and the eastern side of Shaffer Road (a gravel road) from A-O to R-2 On 8/30 the City received a rezoning request from Horace Shaffer via Earl Havel to rezone apx. 37 acres out of a 50 acre tract from A-0 to R-2. On 9/11 Jane called a staff only development review meeting to address some of the problems associated with the request -specific example: lack of adequate access far this proposal due to the existing condition of Shaffer Road, which is gravel. It was also pointed out that it would be helpful to know what was being planned for the area to the north of the creek on the remainder of the 50 acres, since that area abuts Arnold Road, and the likelihood that development of that remaining property to support the dedication and building of Arnold Road is slim. We set up the meeting with the developer, and Sabine explained that staff would not be able to support the request because existing access would not support the proposed development. The developer objected to having to build all of Shaffer Road alone, without the adjacent properties having to contribute, even though. Ed had explained that the density of R-2 zoning would require a 39 foot street to carry the trips per day generated. The developer then proposed to design the project with no access to Shaffer,. and staff agreed that would be acceptable and he would not have to build Shaffer, and could be made a condition of the zoning. When .the property to the north of the creek was discussed, development of Arnold Road was also discussed. The developer did not want to dedicate all of Arnold Road and then build it also. Discussion followed about whether there is ample right-of-way for Arnold Road now, or if all of the required ROW would have to come from this property, whether part of Shaffer Road as it exists could be abandoned and reconfigured to be located at least partially within the R-2 development being discussed; what platting wilt be required, how rights-of-way will be handled, whether or not the City will be in a position to assume some financial responsibility for an "affordable housing" development, as well as the possibility of entering into some kind of development agreement.with the developer. At or near the end of the meeting, the following was decided: 1. The current request would be withdrawn by the applicant, pending answers to certain questions. (The applicant will attempt to meet the September 27th deadline.) 2. When a request is resubmitted, staff will be waiving some of the fees involved due to .the timing of the response of staff to this request. 3. Garrett Engineering is to determine if Arnold Road is a part of the Shaffer property. 4. Staff stated that the developer probably won't be required to build Arnold Road if no access to his development is taken to it. 5. Staff would be discussing and coming to some kind of decision regarding the relocation (re-routing) of Shaffer Road, OR what would be required'if no access it taken to Shaffer Road. 6. Staff will. determine if Arnold Road is not actually there (upon a check of the records)., and when the platting of the property comes in, if the developer doesn't take access to Arnold Road, will the developer still have to dedicate the right-of-way? build it? Wili all of it have #o come from Mr. Shaffer's property? Could the developer dedicate it and then not have to build it? 7. Staff agreed to oversized participation for the improvement of Schaffer Road. The developer would like to meet the deadline on September 27th, which is only 14 days (2 weeks) from this date, so I would suggest that staff have another predevelopment staff only meeting to address some of the concerns raised during yesterday's .meeting. I will be having a meeting scheduled for Tuesday f~~~~~~~~, a.m. to discuss this. ®X Regular Item Consent Item Statutory Item Item Submitted By: For Council Meeting Of: Director Approval: City Manager Approval: Sabine Kuenzel. Senior Planner Apri 111 1996 ` Ends Statements 1 Strategic Issues: Civic Pride -Citizens benefit from well planned, attractive residential and commercial areas. Item: Reconsideration of a previously tabled rezoning of 50 acres located on the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham Road intersection in the Robert Stevenson League from A-O Agriculture Open to R-2 Duplex (32.72 acres) and R-1A Single Family Residential (17.28 acres). Application is in the name of Horace Schaffer. (95-109) Item Summary: The applicant wishes to prepare the property for a duplex development on the 33 acres south of a creek that bisects the property and single family on the 17 acres north of the creek. The current zoning would allow up to 10 dwelling units on 5 acre lots. The requested zoning would increase the number of allowable units to 296 duplex units and 127 single family units (the creek will decrease the units somewhat depending on the layout of the subdivision). The requested development will impact surrounding street systems and effect maintenance costs to the City. This item was tabled by Council to give the applicant and the area homeowners time to see if there could be agreement reached regarding the connection shown on the Thoroughfare Plan between this area and the existing Edelweiss Estates Subdivision. With the conversion of Arnold- Road into a bicycle/pedestrian route, it was established, at the time Edelweiss was approved, that some form of east-west movement would be needed, Aster was chosen as that connection. However, the homeowners in the area are very o:~groupkJeve_sertcvsht195-1 Q9.doc much opposed to such a street connection.After numerous discussions among the Staff, the applicant and area homeowners, Staff recommends that there be an emergency access connection between this proposed subdivision and Edelweiss in the Hasselt/Aster area. This will discourage cut-through traffic but will provide for emergency access. The request complies with the Land Use Plan, which shows Low Density Residential for the subject tract with Low Density Residential in the Edelweiss Estates area and Industrial to the west on the southwest corner of Schaffer and Graham. The request does not yet meet the Thoroughfare Plan because of the condition of Graham Road, Schaffer, and Arnold. Staff has no concern for Graham Road because the future improvements will upgrade the road to adequate levels of service. However, the Thoroughfare Plan shows anorth- south collector and a connecting east-west collector that would need to be included in a development plan. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. There be a north-south collector provided 2. There be an east-west collector provided 3. These two collectors be connected 4. The applicant ensures that the collectors are built within a reasonable time 5. Should the applicant choose to relocate the collector system, that he request abandonment of the existing rights-of-way and convert the gravel roads into different uses. 6. There be an emergency access connection to Schaffer from the proposed subdivision. 7. The rear portion of the industrial site, to the west across Schaffer, retain access to Schaffer. Financial Summary: n/a Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with conditions. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial. City Attorney Recommendation: No concerns expressed Council Action Desired: Approval or denial of request Supporting Materials: 1. Location map 2. Staff report 3. P&Z minutes 4. Council minutes 5. ®rdinance 6. Application o:~groupkleve_ser~CVSht~95-109.doc REC SLIDE 1. There be a north-south collector provided 2. There be an east-west collector provided (These two collectors be connected ) 3. That the collectors are built within a reasonable time(GUARANTEE) (Should the applicant choose to relocate the collector system, convert the gravel roads into different uses.) 4. There be an emergency access connection to Schaffer from the proposed subdivision. 5. The rear portion of the industrial site, to the west across Schaffer, retain access to Schaffer. 6. Hasselt & Aster be connected with curbed alley section G~-~ C ~ ~'s;.~r- f-_ v Reconsideration of a previously tabled rezoning of 50 acres located on the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham Road intersection in the Robert Stevenson League from A-O Agriculture Open to R-2 Duplex (32.72 acres) and R-lA Single Family Residential (17.28 acres). Application is in the name of Horace Schaffer. (95-109) SAM SLIDE Refresh memory: The applicant wishes to prepare the property for a duplex development on the 33 acres south of a creek that bisects the property and single family on the 17 acres ~12-I north of the creek. The current zoning would allow up to 10 dwelling units on S acre lots. The requested zoning would increase the number of allowable units to 296 duplex units and 127 single family units (the creek will decrease the units somewhat depending on the layout of the subdivision). The requested development will impact surrounding street systems and effect maintenance costs to the City. Item tabled by Council to give applicant and area homeowners time to see if there could be agreement reached regarding the connection shown on the Thoroughfare Plan between this area and the existing Edelweiss Estates Subdivision. At the time Edelweiss Estates Master Plan was approved, it was established that some form of east-west movement would be needed. With the cgnversion of Arnold Road into abicycle/pedestrian route, Aster was chosen as that connection. However, area homeowners are very much opposed to such a street connection. After numerous discussions among the Staff, the applicant and area homeowners, Staff recommends that there be an emergency access only connection between this po `-'~`~`~" proposed subdivision and Edelweiss in the Hasselt/Aster area. This will ~' ~ PU discourage cut-through traffic but will provide for emergency access. ~(~ . '~~ ~~~{~ Y es~®w~. Hasselt and Aster be connected via an alley section for improved circulation. -J;~-. There is general agreement on the part of the homeowners that this is an acceptable solution. I have heard that there are some residents that are still unhappy and my understanding is that it has to do with the R 2 request. REF: LETTER However, I understand that the majority are satisfied. The applicant's representative will show you how the emergency access will look when I conclude my remarks. There has been some question about enforcement bf this access. It will be a joint effort on the part of Fire and Police with the help of the neighborhood. comment about drainage J' ?i}isi.)iiiii}}}iiiiiiiii}ii:~:Oiiiiiii:~iiiiiiiiii:~iiiiiiii}i:i4i:~iiiiiiii:vii:::•iiiiiiiii}}}}iiiiii:~iiiiiiiiiiii}i?}; iiiiiiiiiiiiii;4:{?i :i::::::::i::i:::s:::i;:::i::::i::::;?is:;:::i::::i::::i::::ii::::::r is}.;ci;•r,;ki%iY.'~:i::i :::i'»<i'>X:>i::in: .. {.... y; .:.i. ..... ~ii%isS{i'~~VF1Y'''i'i•::v:{::is::.>.::i:::i:::::::i::::::i::::iiv{:~:isi:::::::::is:::>:::::::i•"}}:ii'>::ii?:::r :.::.::. ~.:::iiiii:.::.::.::. :::.::.::.:::.:::.::.:::::::..::iii:.: ~:.::.::.::.i:.i:.::::.::.:::;.:::.::.::.ii:.::.::.i:.ii:..;:;.;::<. ~.:i:<.:::::.:::::. ~::::::::.::.:::::::::::::::::.::: OX Regular Item Consent Item Statutory Item Item Submitted By: For Council Meeting Of: Director Approval Executive Member Approval: Sabine Kuenzel February 22. 1996 Ends Statements /Strategic Issues: Civic Pride; Transportation/Mobility; Health and Public Safety; Parks and Recreation Item: Public hearing and consideration of a .rezoning of 50 acres located on the northeast corner of the Schaffer and Graham Road intersection in the Robert Stevenson League from A-O Agriculture Open to R-2 Duplex (32.72 acres) and R-1A Single Family Residential (17.28 acres). (96-109) Item Summary:. The applicant wishes to prepare the property for a duplex development on the 33 acres south of a creek that bisects the property and single family on the 17 acres north of the creek. The request is in compliance with the Land Use Plan but does not comply with the Thoroughfare Plan, which shows anorth-south collector through the property and another collector that continues to the. east to eventually connect with the Utility Service Center Drive to Rock Prairie Road. The applicant is prepared to construct such a collector system. The Thoroughfare Plan also shows a connection of a residential street from the area west of the subject property. This connection to currently exists in the Edelweis Subdivision where Hasselt and Aster run into the eastern-most boundary of Edelweis. Due to concerns relating to emergency response time, cost of City services, access to parks, and improved mobility, Staff has recommended that this .connection continue with a residential connection from the either Hasselt or Aster or both to the R-1 A portion of the subject property. This recommendation has met with strong opposition from the residents of the two existing streets. o:dev serv/cvsht/95-109 Financial Summary: N/A Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the condition that the. zoning not become effective until a final plat has been submitted that shows compliance with the Thoroughfare Plan. Compliance would include a north-south collector with a collector extending to the east from a point near the north end of the property. Compliance would also include a residential street within the proposed R-1A portion connecting to Edelweis Estates. The Planning .and Zoning Commission held. a public hearing on January 4 and table the item in an effort to give the developer and the area residents a chance to find a compromise. The P&Z will hold a second hearing on February 15. That recommendation will be presented at the Council meeting. City Attorney Recommendation: No concern expressed Council Action Desired: Approval or denial of rezoning Supporting Materials: 1. Area map 2. Staff report 3. Memo dated February 8, 1996 4. Application 5. Letter from Garrett Engineering dated January 19, 1996 6. P&Z minutes. dated January 4, 1996 7. P&Z minutes dated February 15, 1996 8. Letters of opposition 9. Ordinance o:dev serv/cvsht/95-109 Interoffice Memo To: Bill Kennedy Fire Chief From: Jon Mies, Battalion Chief Fire Marshal Date: February 8, 1996 Subject: Schaffer Rezoning After reviewing the memorandum from Sabine Kuenzel, and Ed Hard, to the Planning and Zoning Commission I feel the Fire Deparhnent's concern over the issue is not properly addressed. On page two of the memorandum it states that a "lack of connection could decrease the secondary response time by up to one and one-half minutes". The correct statement should be that the lack of connection could decrease primary response by up to one and one-half minutes. Other problems that arise out of the lack of a connection are evident when you look at the proposed development plan. It shows the relocation of Schaffer Road crossing a large storm water detention area /creek bed. If heavy rains caused this access to be cut off the residents in the back portion of the development would denied an emergency response. Other areas of concern are the formation of cul-de-sacs. One being Aster that will have no direct access to either Victoria or Schaffer if the connection is not made. The second being the new development becoming one large cul-de-sac with one way in and one way out. I understand that Arnold is proposed to have connections, but there is no timeline for this to take place This type of arrangement is not sound practice to follow when planning for emergency response. If the connection is not made the Fire Department will have one more pocket development to access that will join the ranks of Windwood, Raintree and Emerald Forest. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission ~~'.. FROM : Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner ~ a~d~,~- Ed Hard, Transportation Planner ~.~~ DATE : February 8, 1996 RE : Traffic Information Relative to the Schaffer Rezoning At the public hearing where this rezoning was discussed, there was a considerable amount of opposition due primarily to concerns for increased traffic through the Edelweiss subdivision. This item was tabled in order to give the applicant an opportunity to meet with homeowners. Since that time, staff has had an opportunity to visit with the Police, Sanitation, and Fire departments about this specific case, to conduct further study on the potential traffic impacts associated with this rezoning, and to review again the Development Policies. The concerns of the residents relating to traffic were discussed on January 15 at a meeting that the applicant had with four representatives of the homeowners. Several members of Staff were in .attendance in order to listen to the issues and make sure these were taken into consideration. The applicant and homeowners discussed two alternatives to the connection, including turning the Arnold hike and bike system back into a collector and making no east-west connection at all. The homeowners made it clear that no connection would be the only alternative they would find acceptable. Staff left that meeting with the intent to take the homeowners concerns into consideration. If traffic volumes were the only issue staff had to consider, we would not require that this connection be made and in fact would not recommend for connections in other cases. The decision to connect the Edelweiss Subdivision to a neighborhood to the east was made about three years ago with the City's approval of the Edelweiss Master Plan, when it was determined that Hasselt and Aster Streets would tie directly into Schaffer Road. Both streets were intentionally connected in order that the combination of the two could share in serving as a future connection. It was recognized at that time that an east-west collector was needed through this area, but the City could not require that Arnold Road serve this function since it was not on the Thoroughfare Plan. However, the Master Plan for Edelweiss did have to show that it met Development Policies and therefore showed the connection to the existing Schaffer Road. The staff had recommended this connection with the Edelweiss Master Plan for the same reasons that it recommends the connection to the subject property. The staff is responsible for reviewing development proposals in relation to the City's adopted Development Policies as adopted by Council. Staff has consistently recommended connections between subdivisions because they further the following policies: 1. Single family residential areas should be located within easy access of shopping, schools, and recreation, but should be protected from any incompatibility of more intense uses. In this case, a connection would provide more convenient access between Southwood Athletic Park and the neighborhood park in Edelweiss. 2. Balance development of all modes of transportation to assure the fast, convenient, efficient, and safe movement of people and goods to, from, and within the community. In this case, a connection would provide for more efficient emergency response time according to the Fire Department: Connections also enhance traffic movement to meet this Development Goal.. However, unlike in the Edelweiss Master Plan, usually such connections take the form of a collector street. Based on the Development Policies as well as a concern for the increased maintenance cost of discontinuous subdivisions, Staff recommends that a connection be made between the proposed subdivision and the existing Schaffer Road. However, we have looked further into the reasoning behind the recommendation as it relates to this particular case. The difference in the cost of service to these areas would be negligible. The Police and Sanitation Departments have expressed no concern. Although access to the park would not be as convenient without a connection, it is at least still possible. The one concern of significance is from the Fire Department. The lack of a connection could decrease the response time by up to a minute. Staff is currently still in dicusssions with that department in order to provide the Commission and Council enough information to be able to understand the significance of this concern. The Commission's recommendation and Council's decision will ultimately take not only the City's goals but also the public input into consideration. Staff has therefore concentrated on the potential impact to Hasselt and Aster. Traffic volumes on residential streets can range anywhere from a couple hundred a day to about a thousand. For the sake of comparison, .staff is currently conducting traffic counts on Hasselt. These numbers will be presented to the Commission at the meeting. If the 50 acres is rezoned to R-lA and R-2 and a connection between the neighborhood is provided, staff estimates that the amount of traffic on Hasselt and Aster would remain below a 1000 vehicles per day. Hasselt would carry the large majority of this traffic because it connects directly to Victoria. This estimate is based on the only outlets to the 50 acres being Hasselt/Aster and Graham Road. While this amount falls within what is considered an acceptable range for traffic on a residential street, it is on the high end of the range and is clearly not acceptable to the residents of Edelweiss. If the 33 acres of undeveloped property east of the proposed rezoning is developed as low density residential, staff estimates that the traffic volumes on Hasselt/Aster would be in excess of 1000 vehicles a day. This again is with the assumption that the only means in and out of this area is by Hasselt/Aster and Graham Road. However, the Thoroughfare Plan shows that Arnold Road is to be continued to the east. of the subject property with an eventual connection to Rock Prairie Road near Highway 6. At full build-out of the Land Use and T-fare Plans, staff estimates the traffic volumes would be slightly above the range that can be expected on residential streets. It should be noted that the amount of traffic that is considered acceptable on a residential street can vary greatly by community and even neighborhood. It is staffs understanding that even a slight increase on these streets is unacceptable to the residents. The concern stems from the fact that two residential streets are expected to act as a collector, and even though the streets are able to handle the traffic from a capacity point of view, the result of carrying out the past decision will impact the residents. This case is a good example of the difficulty in implementing a proper thoroughfare system using a piecemeal approach. The City has already begun to address this issue by amending the Thoroughfare Plan to include areas outside the City Limits. This update was adopted shortly after Edelweiss was approved and the practice of comprehensive planning within the ET7 will continue with the HOK plan. With proper planning and development that does not waiver from the plan, these situations will become rare except in the instance of infill development. In this particular case, the Commission and City Council must weigh the benefits of improved accessibility and emergency response against the impacts of increased traffic through the Edelweiss subdivision. r ti ~~ POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE -- •. COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 "' (409) 764-3507 11/1EIYI®RP~iN®V N9 TO: Natalie Thomas, Planning Technician FROM: .Carla Robinson, Legal Intern C RE: Rezoning Ordinance -Schaffer Property ®ATE: January 15, 1996 As requested, please find attached the proposed rezoning ordinance fora 50.00 acre tract situated in the Robert Stevenson League, located at the northeast corner of Schaffer and Graham Roads. The applicant is Horace Schaffer. If we can be of further assistance, please advise. CR:jls Attachment js/c/rezone/natalie J X O O O 4 c~6 `~ H (n F- (n I- (A f- fn F- to H (A I- fn f- (A Q' Q ' R' ~ ~ ~ I- J F- J H J F- J H J F- J ~ I- J F- J p . p p p Q ~ W W W W W W ~ W W ~ Q' ~ ~ ~ 0 Q ~ fA fn (A fn fA (n (A fn cn (n to fn ~ ¢ (n (n (A (n W H W F- W H W I- ~ ¢ ~ ~ a _ r ¢ = O a = l~ a = ~ ¢ = co a = ~ Q ~ ¢ = O ¢ = ao cn a ~ cn a O cn a -n cn a w = ~ (A N r~ r ~ r r~ r ti r t~ r r~ C7 N r, r ~ N r- r ti r ~ r ~ C~ ~ ~t tl') ~' O 'tt ~ ~' ~ mot' LA d' O ~{ ~.A d' ~ mot' ~ ~' tf') O N O M O O O d M ti M ti M ~ M ti O ti M ~ M ~ O ~ M ~ W N O ~ O I~ M ~ M ~ N ~ ~ ~ ti ~ i.. ~ ti ~ r. ~ r. ~ r~ F- (A X H X F- X H X F- X H X F- X F- X F- X H X F- X !- X F- X 1- X I- Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 1- Q F- Q H Q 1- Q 1- Q F- Q E- Q F- Q F- Q i- Q f- U I- U 1- U F- U F- U h- U F- U F- U I- ~ I- U w w w w w w w w w w z ~ c~ c~ c~ c~ c~ ~ c~ ~ c~ z ~ z z w J w J w J w J w J w J w J w J w J w J Q ~ Q Q ~ J J J J J J J J J J ~- ~ ~- ~- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ U U U U U U U U U U U ~ 2 00 00 0 0 W Q Q~ W H N (n Q O r Q ~ O N W ~ O W ~ ~ ~ ~ U tp ~ v~ Z U ~ ~ J W J W ~ ~ J W J W J W Z 2 J W J W ~ W' ,0~, d. ~ z ~ ~ cn (n cn ~ Q (n cn (A cn (n cn (A ~ (n tn (n tn W l- X Z Q W = v X _ a ¢ w ¢ a ¢ w a ¢ cn O cn n- O ~ 0 _ _ = = = a = = ¢ m r ~ m Q Q r N I~ O r f`~ r Cp ~ t,ly r !~- (p r 1~ 'd' r I~ N O ~ O N ~ o0 r ti r N ~ Q ~ 0 O r ~ '7 O a Z Z Q Z O J a = J W W U ~ Z O z ~ W Q o2S O Q' U Z o °~ ~ w m ~ F... w _ J ~ ~s w ~ z ~ ~ U ~ w p z_ U ¢ ~ J ~ ~ w ~ ~ o c~ Q _~ ~ = 0 ~ ~ ~ - o- ~ m ~ ~ } W ~ ~ ~ O U w D W w ~ a ~ O Q W Y C9 ~ ~ ¢ O ~ Z W } J O U J V Q Q ~ a ~ O O W Q ~ Q ~ aC ~ O ~ ~ (A ~ U O a W p Z W R' U Z C9 ~ c~ z C9 ti. c~ N ~'S J ~ m Q ~ p ~ ~ ~ r 00 0 00 00 I~ 1~ ~ O O O M CO r N O ' r O 0 d' 0 M I~ M O ~ O N O 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 00 M 0 N 0 N 0 ~t 0 d' 0 '~t 0 ~ 0 M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r d r N O tE ~ J -~-~/. ~ ~S° ~ cr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` \ v ~~~ ®s ~