Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneousSTAFF NOTES Nantucket 6-12 8z Leisure Island 1-3 Case #97-312 Ordinance Requirements: _ Clearly distinguish the current city limites line. Submit an impact study for the sanitary sewer oversize participation request. Include.. a north arrow for the platted area as well as the vicinity map. Indicate the basis of bearing for the survey. _ Approval of the Master Preliminary Plat will be conditioned upon successful rezoning. _ Provide sidewalks along, one side of all streets except Mariner's Cove, Wayfarer Lane and Beacon. How will drainage be handled throughout the subdivision. More specifically: Across lots 8 and 9 of Phase 12. Across lot 15 in Phase 8. Across lots 4 and S of Phase 9. _ Note the type of easement proposed between lots 8 and 9 of Phase 10. _ Show the .proposed pedestrian access from Sconset Cove to eventually allow access to Nantucket Drive. Submit a revised master plan of the Nantucket Subdivision. Comments/Concerns: Coordinate telephone service details with G.T.E. Representative Laverne Akin at (409) 821-4723. SUBMIT THE MYLAR ORIGINAL AND 15 COPIES BY WEDNESDAY, JULY 30, 1997 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS FOR THE MEETING ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 7 1997 AT THE COLLEGE STATION CONFERENCE CENTER AT 1300 GEORGE.. BUSH DRIVE AT 7:00 P.M. THE CITY COUNCII, WII.L CONSIDER THE. MASTER PRELIlVIINARY PLAT ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1997 IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL ROOM AT .1101 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH AT 7:00 P.M. ,, ®•/- CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I ~'~ Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409) 764-3500 Ms. Kathy Mayfield, CRS,GRI RealtorBroker 1003 University Drive East College Station, :Texas 77840 March 20 1997 RE: Zoning and Property Use - 1500 Nantucket Dear Ms. Mayfield: In response to your letter dated March 6, 1997 regarding the status of the property located at 1500 Nantucket, my research has provided the following information: It appears from your letter and the Appraisal District tax records that there has been illegal: .subdivision of lot 3 sometime since the filing of the 1984 plat. Therefore, a replat will need to be submitted and approved prior to any building, .repair,: plumbing or electrical permits being issued by the City. However, a replat of this lot would result inlots that do not meet the minimum lot size requirements of the A-O zone. The only way to legitimize this situation is o receive a variance to the lot size requirements in A-O prior: to filing: a replat of the property, or seek and receive a rezoning to some classification with. smaller minimum lot size requirements (prior to filing the replat). This latter approach might be difficult due to the factthat the.land useplan shows this propertyfor low.density residential uses and there could potentially be opposition from the Nantucket. residents for anything other than residential zoning. There is no guarantee thatthe Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) would grant the lot size variance, however this process is shorter and less expensive than a rezoning.. If the ZBA does grant a variance to the lot size, .then you could. market the property for continued use as a office* as long as no expansions occurred without ZBA approval.. In addition you could market the property: for any use permitted. in the A-O zone, however, once the use is changed from an office to another permitted use, the non-conforming status is lost and only permitted A-0 uses would be allowed from. that point forward. It could no longer be used for an office without a rezoning. -o"Jnxe"N^rnv~KT.a~" Home of Texas ABM University ,~ I hope this letter has addressed your questions and given you somedirection. Ifyou have more questions please do not hesitate to call me at 764-3570. Sincerely, <~,. ', _ _ _ ~ _..II~ 7afie It. Kee, AICP '; _ City Planner I i i i ~i *To help you further, the following is an excerpt from books of development definitions we use in classifying uses. ' 1. "Office - A building or portion of a building where services are performed involving ~ predominately administrative, professional or clerical operations." 2. "Office - ...used for. conducting the affairs of abusiness, profession, service, industry, government and generally furnished with desks, tables, files, communication equipment, The term office is almost generic without the necessity of spelling out all' the functions. that may be carried out. in an office. Indeed, as modem technology expands, office functions include .tasks that in the. past would have been considered production, industrial or commercial.. For example, desktop publishing, high speed data ` transmission, and large varieties of research are:now carried out in offices." .~:. March 6, 1997 Jane Key City of College Station 1101 Texas Ave S. College Station, TX 77840 Re: Zoning and. Property. Use 1500 Nantucket Dear'Ms. Key, I am writing this letter of request as a Realtor, representing a property owner and hopefully seller of the above stated property. The owner of this property is Joseph A. Falcone and the legal address of the property is Lot 3 (pt. of.) Block 13, Nantucket #2 Brazos County, Texas. I have had this property listed since March e5, 1996 through today's date. We have lowered the price from $148,000 to $99,900 trying. to sell the property as either an office building or residential. We have. had more interest as office versus residential. Under the new city zoning, it is unclear o me as a Realtor how I will be allowed to represent this seller's .property,. office or residential or both. This building has never been used as residential and until a few months ago (about 3 or 4) it was continually used as office pace for several commercial users. It has a breakfast type bar with a microwave, a small under the counter refrigerator and a sink but this is only. a small area and no room to really expand. We could sell as residential but with the Nantucket office nexf door, which has. at least three businesses officing there and these two buildings are on the same lift station for sewer. 'Without'expensive modification, this building.. may be li~it~d t3 office ~~ace. Ms. Key, this is a great building with a beautiful view and I am continuing to market it as both residential and commercial office building, but 1 am unsure of what to tell potential buyers which will .hurt the seller's progress of selling this property. Please let me know, if you can, which direction I can go with. this property. Respectfully, ~, ~ J ~./ ` Kathy Mayfield RS,GRI Realtor/Broker cc: Joseph A. Falcone 1003 University' Drive East, College Station, Texas 77840,. (409) 846-2894, Fax (409) 846-4652 ~° ~~~ ~. 9~ ,l~~~a/ ~~~ n~~~ ~.G ~ ~~i~i . ~~ ,~~lez~iG~rfG ~~G _. . _ .~ ,, s, .. . ~ ~~ ____ _ _ ~ ,, .. l ~_~.~, 'I l i ~~ S ~`f~ 1 ~I~ '~ i t _. ~- 'v e I / _ _ ~f~ _.. J ~;; ..--- r~ _ _ ' __ ~~ y .~'~~~' r ,1-__.., r __- .._~ _- ------ f _..__.._ iu.!_,~.I~~'--..,I-~r-t~~~~F~/~!!!_e~ _.._.N`7 .._ ___ ~_. ~!V_..._ _/ L,.il~7`IiI~/1 ~,..I.~~__./~~`..~,..}I_!~ ._.~_.-_•__ __..__..___-_.. s i i _ .._._ ...._ ._. -` - - --_~/~~- ____r "-_.._~ _ ___ _-._ _...___ Via-.-^-.. ~~~.~~l~+.'..-y°-- f~ _ _,__._ ~_ ..-------- .___.---_ -F- ~- -- I ..~~~~~ .._T /~~ 1 -- {-- 1 _.- / ~R±!~!~~ ~ ._ ~~~~L~^ __:___ ..+ /yam ~,; T__._ i !:I iI~ ./~~ ~__ ~ : i ~/ ~~' i ~ I t._ _. _._ _..._ 1~ ~~ ii ~~ ...--~' ..r.. ~s~ u~-~fc. ~c.~- ~_ ~' DO YOU WANT A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD IN NANTUCKET? Phyllis Hobson filed a new plat for the last phase of the Nantucket Subdivision at~College.Station City Hall on Wednesday 16`h July 1997. This new plat shows a plan for 115 new lots to be carved out of the 60 undeveloped acres that .exist at the front of Nantucket Drive on the left hand side going in. Her plan is to drive two. new roads to the left of Nantucket Dr. to serve`52 city sized lots of ~a acre each, and to use the entrances on the access roads to serve 52 lots which will. be '-~ acre each. The lots will be sold for between $30-40,000, each home will be a minimum of 2000 sq.ft. To .see what this means to us, compare the two plats that follow. Number 1, filed in 1992 shows the low density I acre lots that were planned for this area. Number 2 show the 115 new lots. . In the other 600 acres of the Nantucket Subdivision there are only approximately 240 other lots, so with I15 new ones she is increasing the number of lots by almost SOg. Moreover, she is putting those lots in an area that is only 10~ the size of the rest of-Nantucket!- Hence, she is proposing to build a new neighborhood in Nantucket. The reason is obvious, lot sales will generate between $3-4,000,000. In-the plat filed in the courthouse and on record, the area she. is proposing to subdivide shows a minimum lot size of l acre, and thus only 25-35 new iots.. This is the minimum tot size possible .for lots on~a septic system. However, the reason that smaller ..lots are now. possible is that she petitioned College Station to annex all the land at the: front of Nantucket. last year. This succeeded, and she then entered negotiations to bring the city sewer that ends in Pebble Creek across Highway 6 to Nantucket. Funds have been alloca ed by the city to begin work on extending the sewer in the fall, so that it will be in Nantucket by, the summer of next year making this new development possible.' Both the sewer and new neighborhood construction will involve years of .trucks, dirt, and trash, and there is no doubt that Nantucket drive will be torn up for months as the new development is created. Do you remember how bad it was when the road was destroyed last time? The question is what do Nantucket residents think about this? Few people know about it because we have- no homeowners association: as you may know this is controlled by Ms. Hobson. A few of us who -found out have got together, and we are presenting this information to you row as we have to quickly decide what to do. Ms. Hobson`s proposal goes before the College Station zoning commission on August 7t'' tsee below) . Ps a group of concerned Nantucket residents we want to prevent this new development from going ahead based on two main concerns: First, we bought lots out here on the basis that Nantucket would b e low density housing that used to mean a minimum of 1-2 acre lots. We believe that the new development would alter the whole • character and feeling of Nantucket. In fact, a111~the initial °~ advertising for Nantucket was based on the idea that the rights of property owners would be protected, and the large lots was the principal selling point...When you bought your lot what were you told? Did you believe that something like this could happen? Second, we believe that property values would be severely hurt- possibly by 10-20~. Nantucket's-claim'to fame is its large lots and country atmosphere. If we lose this, we will become just one more city neighborhood-and subdivisions like Pebble Creek which have good roads, schools, etc. will always have an advantage over us. Moreover, new developments are planned to the South of us. Third, it is not clear to u~ that these lots would sell. People who want a small lot would probably prefer to live in Pebble Creek, not backed up to noisy Highway 6. Why would they want to live in Nantucket which has no amenities? We are all aware of the. failure of the Nantucket retirement home concept. Why would it be .any different for a city lot development? This whole area could become an eyesore for years to come, further affecting property values.. At ..present,. two Nantucket residents who are .attorneys are studying the plats filed of record in the courthouse,: deed restrictions, etc., to see if there are any legal grounds for opposing this new development, and there does appear to be some -hope here. .There is also the issue of .selling large lots to buyers, with the understanding that homes in the neighborhood • will be a minimum of two. acre s, and then turning around and selling small lots when all~the large ones are sold. • ~ • If •we can act .legally we are going to have to raisemoney to fight 'a court case. We will need to form our .own homeowners committee and devote time and money to fighting this but also .planning what we think the future of Nantucket should be. beyond the legal path, however, there is the zoning issue. As it was explained to us, if Nantucket residents .can demonstrate that they are solidly opposed to this, and if they can present a compelling case to the city council as to why it should not go .through, she may not be able to get the rezoning permission that she needs to go ahead with the proposed new development. The planning and zoning commission meets on August 7th probably in the. College Station .conference center on George Bush Drive to discuss this issue.. Their recommendation will be presented to the full council on August 28"' probably at city hall. Obviously, given the speed. at which the zoning issue is moving we need to meet to talk and decide what to do. Unless enough people are prepared to do something nothing will happen. Therefore we propose that we meet at the-park on the lake in Nantucket next Saturday, 26~' July at gam to discuss these issues and how to proceed. In the meantime, we encourage you to talk to your friends and neighbors in Nantucket both to make sure. they know about this. issue and to talk about the future of Nantucket. I can't give you much more information that I have in this letter, but please call me, Gareth Jones at 690-6712, if you have anything you wish to discuss before this meeting. c~ s / I p~ • V` ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ -~ ~ . ~ ~ it . ., r ~ o to ~ ~ ~ 666' ~~ ~ ~ '~•- • ~~: ~ ~ ~•r ~, ~_%• ~' e S ~ • ~ ~ ~ fit. ~ ;e. ."~~', ~~ ~~~~~ ~ c1`~.: ~ Q~~ ~~ ~~~ NAG •.. c~ V •, ~ ' ry' ~ ~ ~ . ~.. - `. `. ~ ~~ i~ .J . .~Z ~ ~ 3110 ,=~rz•Y~ , .- . ~°~ ~~;1, .. ~°v.~~ ~ ` ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~~n, vim" ,v N ~~` ~% ~' ', ~.~~ ~ ' pal . ~•,w31. °`'w J ~~ \ ` ~~ ~ / G ~/ ~. 1. ~ / ~ ~ , ~ •' ~ •. ~ rd . • ~ ~l' Y ~ rx~tir~z~r Nn~ ~ ' P O z t N ~~ ~~~ •1`~`~ •~ .. ~. 1 r:: - . C ~' ~ _ a ~ ' p 't ~ ~ e ,r w:.':\...~. ~ ..~Sx~-rlrpi~...,~ 1:, 3'j.i ._ y_s! -~ +J' fi ' ~- . ~ ~ ' S •~, ~C t '~ .~ • ~. I 1 3 I __~ _ C ~` \ ~1 11 .. I ~ /' \ \ v ` N-1t,! ~3 _ ~~ L S'; ~r ~,t w ~~ i L. I~ rl r 1~ ~ titltiiSlst ss /~;~ ~ /' _~ r~ \ / 1 ~ 1 ~ ,~SSbFfTiTLIf ~~C ~ / al~: ~.r '~' J;(~ ~~ ~~~ti"T s -~ T ' ~`' 1 t 1 ~~ .# - ,`` ~r ~ a~ y ~, . _. + ,1,44.E 18:1 fib} it ~ et. L, w....' I~r ~. rLII+J~I~ ~- / 1 1 ~'~-,r`'~ ~' `~I ._.h...;~.• ~111.TbJYi~'. I,,'~ I 313 ,'~~TMS.t2•i. ..212 ~l~'`" ;~T I ; _-~ !~\t L~ ~~li ~'I: V r 1 1 f~ I L~3 "'~iil.~ /A ` ~ 1 I1 ' III Iry II II `~/ '` ~ 3.., I b ~~ `~ I,r s-s-s~s+sl_I:r~as~:et-, v.~__~ I ; :~ ~, If1 ~ ' .~ A, „r usi27 ~sstsl:IrKtr, L Is , ~ ~ ~ , Z .-A - I ~~ 1 ~. I, I ;~ ~ t 1' -s~; s I i~`~s!i1s71"is'E `//I,/~1,` ~~ l~Q t. ~ :,` 1 ,ii; '1 I~t~ I- I ~S - ~~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 111 `\ •;. r~l ~ ~ 1,1 ~ ~'" ~ I ~ ~ .1 . ~ 1 "i \• _'i J ~ ,1• c / --]rte` ~i]•~ 1 ~ i __I ~ir'_ Q I t -~ ~ Y-" W4YF'j1RER LA --- ~~ ,' S {5@ li ~~ 1 u `1 1, IrV 1 ~ -~ ''~ rl ~.. ~ s.., 'I 9 ~' ~,.1, ~ ~ r~Z 1 I . k a O i lr ~. \ n - ~ ~" 1 ` ~- e /NANTUCKET PHASE 1 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 40 ('~I~ 88.01 2.20 2 8 15.11 1.89 3 9 26.79 2.98 4 6 (~~ 9.60 1.60 5 7 9.85 _ ---- 1.41 . - ~~,~~ NANTUCKET PHASE 2 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 6 15 39.97 2.66 7 23 64.22 2.79 8 6 23.16 3.86 9 7 14.63 2.09 10 8 16.00 2.00 11 5 9.00. 1.80 12 6 11.88 1.98 2 13 2 X31 14.35 z~,~s' 7.18 ? 14 2 3.77 7.53 1.88 - N~^' ~~~" ~ ~~`~` ~ ~'- ~~~~~~`~ ~ ~ ~ NANTUCKET 3 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 16 6 9.4 1.57 17 3 4.14 1.38 18 4 6.0 1.50 f +s,9°g1y ~~ ' NANTUCKET 4 / 4 ~, Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot ,/ 19 5 7.16 1.43 20 3 (') 21 4 lea) 4.29. ~•~'3 5.26 1.43 1,32 - N~ ~Ivs - p~~ Pd~ase. ~2 ~('rar~J~fl3lfff~4 ~1~ ~,~_ 22 3 4,76 L59 zl e~l'7 NANTUCKET 5 2- Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot = 23 3 3.57 1.19 24 5 7.42 1.48 25 4 1.30 ~~5&~ KENSAIL POINT r Block # of Lots Total Acreage - Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 6 8.38 1.40 ~~,- Z SNUG HARBOR PHASE 1 v Block # of Lots ..Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 4 6.16 1,54 SNUG HARBOR PHASE r Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 8 6.73 0.84 PELICAN'S POINT COVE ~~e~e~. ~`~ ro~s~~. Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 7 10.77 1.54 LEISURE ISLAND (former) ~Bloek # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 79 13.17 0.167 LEISURE ISLAND (new) Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 30 5.22 st7~ 0.17 PROPOSED PHASES NANTUCKET PHASE 6 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 6 1.32 0.220 2 4 1.55 0.388 / 3 9 1.90 . 0.211 x,_ ~~7 NANT UCKET PHASE 7 Block # of Lots .Total Acreage Ave. Ac, Per Lot 1 11 2.15 0.195 2 16 3.91 0.244 J ~~~~ NANT UCKET PHASE 8 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 20 6.19 0:310 .NANTUCKET PHASE 8A ,..., Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 3 3.306 1.102 NANTUCKET PHASE 8B Block # of Lots Total Acreage .Ave. Ac. Per Lot l 4 4.613 1.153 NANTUCKET PHASE 9 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 7 2.57 0:368 'JNANTUCKET PHASE 10 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 12 6.94 0.5'18 J NANTUCKET PHASE 11 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot V 1 8 4.59 0.574 2 8 3.59 __._. 0.449 NANTUCKET PHASE 12 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 14 7.67 0.548 ~' *NOTE: All acreages exclude streets (with the exception of Leisure Island) .w ~'°' ~'`~~~ Ohre ,,~~ lo~-P~ ~`~s.'f`„ ~~~ Lefs I-y ~ l~c~t`-~s ~ ~ ~,e~ , ~C~,~ rte- ~ 1}dcr~~.~ ~ THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED. NANTUCKET DEVELOPMENT JULY 23, 1997 TO: NANTUCKET RESIDENTS A'LETTER FROM GARETH 70NES HAS CROSSED MY DESK THAT NEEDS SOME CLARIFICATION AND`CORRECTION. THIS IS A LETTER YOLT'MAY' HAVE `RECENED: '''COPIES ARE ALSO POSTID AT THE MAILBOXES. IN HIS LETTER, MR'JONES REFERS TO A "PLAT NU11iIBER Y ; WHICH HE STATES IS FILED AT THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE. THIS IS NOT TRUE.: ONLY FINAL PLATS ARE FILED WITH THE .COUNTY AND CITY. THE PLAT THAT HE SHOWS WITH HIS LETTER IS ONE OF MANY PRELIIVIINARY PLATS WHICH MY ENGINEERS GIVE TO THE CITY AND COUNTY AS WE WORK THROUGH;THE DIFFERENT'PHASES OF THE DEVELOPMENT. ONLY ONE OF THE MANY PRELIIvIINARY PLATS WILL BE CHOSEN AND DECLARED THE FINAL PLAT TO BE RECORDED FOR EACH PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS WHY NANTUCKET CONSISTS OF PHASES I, II, III, IV; V, PELICAN POINT, SNUG HARBOR I .SNUG HARBOR II, KENSAII, POINT AND'LEISURE ISLAND. THE PLAT NUMBER l .THAT MR. JONES DESCRIBES IS A PLAT SHOWING COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL LOTS. THIS IS AN AREA. THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SET ASIDE FOR LIGHT-COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. ` WHENNANTUCKET WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED, IT WAS TO HAVE A 19.4 ACRE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH A;CATFISH RESTAURANT LOCATED AT THE NORTH ENTRANCE (MISTY LANE).' WI-IERE PELICAN POINT IS NOW LOCATED THERE HAD BEEN PROPOSED ON THE MASTER:PLAN A TENNIS CONDOMINNM PROJECT OVERLOOKING THE LAKE. WHERE' MY FORMER HOME IS LOCATED THE MASTER PLAN SHOWS A TOWNHOME PROJECT, .INCLUDING ALL OF SNUG HARBOR I AND II. AS THE'ECONOMY CHANGE&FROM YEAR'TO YEAR, EACH SECTION OF`TI~ UNDEVELOPED MASTER PLAN MUST BE ADDRESSED. IN OUR LATEST REVIEW WE HAVE REMOVED FOUR OF -THE SEVEN PLANNED STREETS IN THE RETIREMENT AREA,. REDUCING THE DENSITY IN THAT REVIvED AREA FROM 47 LOTS TO 7 LOTS; EACH LOT BEING APPROXIMATELY ONE-ACRE IN SIZE.. MOVING TOWARD HIGHWAY 6 AND SOUTH OF THE ENTRY, MY NEW PRELIIvIINARY PLr1N HAS DONE AWAY WITH THE COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL AREAS,.. REPLACING IT WITH SINGLE FAMII,Y DWELLING SITES.' I HAVE BEEN IN REAL ESTATE IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR 31 YEARS, AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THE VALUE OF ALL RESIDENTIAL HOMESITES WII.L BE BETTER SERVED BY MORE RESIDENTIAL HOMESITES NEARBY THAN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT NEARBY.. THE RESIDENTIAL HOMESITES THAT BACK-UP TO HIGHWAY 6 (PHASES 11 & 12) ARE 240 FEET 1502 Nantucket Drive College Station, Texas 77845 (409) 690-3000 +~ b DEEP. I WII.L BE RESTRICTING THE BACK 75 FEET TO 100 FEET. (THAT PART OF THE LOT NEAREST THE HIGHWAY) TO BE-LEFT WOODED WITH NO FENCING OR STRUCTURES TO BE PLACED ON THAT PORTION OF THE LOT. THIS WII.L LEAVE A BEAUTIFUL WOODED LOOK TO NANTUCKET THAT YOU NOW SEE, AS OPPOSED TO THE CLEARING OF COMMERCIAL LOTS FOR A CONVENIENCE CENTER, ETC. MR. JONES' LETTER ALSO STATED THAT NANTUCKET HAS NO PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION. NANTUCKET HAS A PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION. IT WAS INCORPORATED AND FILED. WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN 1987. WE HAVE PAID OUR ' FRANCHISE FEE.YEARLY AND HAVE A CPA PERFORM.OUR IRS REPORTS YEARLY. I HAVE APPOINTED A STEERING COMMITTEE TO,BEGIN IMPLEMENTATIONAF THE CONVERSION OF MY MANAGEMENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS' MANAGEMENT. IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS YOU WILLBE RECEIVING AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THIS.COMMITTEE REGARDING A MEETING TO ELECT FIVE DIRECTORS, WHO WILL APPOINT THE OFFICERS OF THE POA. THIS CONVERSION WILLBE COMPLETED SO THAT OFFICERS,'COMMITTEES AND 'THE BUDGET'CAN BE IN PLACE FOR JANUARY 1,:1998. I HAVE:WORKED VERY HARD'IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS TO.DESIGN, PLAN, AND BUILD A "HALLMARK" SUBDIVISION; "ONE THAT YOU AND I CAN BOTH BE PROUD OF NOW AND iN THE FUTURE. IT WILL TAKE SEVERAL MORE YEARS TO COMPLETE, AND I WILL BE IN MY OFFICE ON:A DAILY BASIS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, TO ASSIST WITH THE POA AND TO SEE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE REMAINING PHASES IS HANDLED PROPERLY. IF YOU HAVE :ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL ME. SINCERELY YOURS, ~,Of ~ ~d~as~-~ LIS J. BSON DEVELOPER ~. 1506 Wayfarer Lane College Station; TX 77845 7 August 1.997:. ;City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77840 '~ Re Application by Ms Phyllis Hobson- for replattin~ portions of Nantucket Subdivision Greetings; The'purpose of this letter is to lend support to the,. plans by Ms. Phyllis Hobson to replat E~ portions of the Nantucket subdivision. My wife and I have been residents of Nantucket for about 4 years, having moved into our ~ current residence-in August of 1993... Ms. Hobson was the Realtor who participated in the purchase of the lot where our residence is located. It has been our experience that Ms. Hobson has consistently acted in the best interest of the residents of Nantucket. This is .certainly reasonable since her role as,a developer of home sites depends on the home sites being a net asset to both the potential buyer and to the community. at-large. In fact, Ms. Hobson counseled me on occasion to respond to neighborhood situations in a way that was the best for the neighborhood while it did cost me additional over other strategies.' I have always found her counsel,to be :valid and .insightful While most of us in Nantucket prize the country. atmosphere that we enjoy, our subdivison is in the direct path of the future growth of College.. Station.. So growth will occur in the Nantucket area. The best strategy for the current residents of Nantucket is to manage the growth in a way to preserve. and. enhance the atmosphere of the neighborhood. ~ It is understandable that people would prefer the area under discussion to not have. any. ~i development. This is an unreasonable position. Ms. Hobson has substantial investment in the property and for her to not realize any income. from that property would not be reasonable. The area that is being proposed for replatting is near Highway 6 and as such is less ' desirable property than most.. of us in Nantucket currently own.. It is unlikely that a potential buyer would put the large investment into a country home like what many of us .have done..: Therefore, this property could easily become commercial (strip centers, etc.:), storage facilities (which are popular), high density apartments, or perhaps something that is even less desirable. The proposal is a viable. way of balancing. the needs of the community and the developer. ~. 8 ~..b '., ~ r w" Ms. Hobson's proposal would substantially increase the population. of the area and place increased loads on the streets, etc. But the increase would be less than any of the other viable alternatives. Please:.note that I do not. consider'no development: to be viable. The '~ additional load on the streets is a matter that does need the attention of Ms. Hobson. and .the City of College Station, but it appears to me that this;problem is under control. In summary, I support what Ms. Hobson is proposing primarily due to my confidence in her. I have reviewed various .letters that have been distributed to the residents and I see no problem with any of the proposals that I have seen.. Ms Hobson's proposal creates a ', win-win-win scenario for the developer, the residents, and the City of College Station. Sincerely,. / , a/~2 John T. Ba win { ,~ I ;, I ,j !, { r2_ __ I RUG-06-97 WED 03,47 PM FAX N0. P. 01 1771 Arington Road College Station, TX 77845 August 5, 1997 Planning:.& Zoning Board City of Co1ie a Station g College `Station, ~''X 77840 Sub'ect: .. J Re zonin 6f ton $ e ~'Y area ~ of Nantucket Subdivision Dear I ardes & Gentlemen:..- It has come to my attention Chat the commercial area along the SH 6 Eton the Nantucket Subdivision is, the subject of re-platting and re-zoning. As aehomeow er in'Nantucket Two 1 ' u d like to express my opinion. When placing a contract on our home in 1991, I reviewed the recorded plat of Nantucket in the County Clerk's. office .and Brazos County Appraisal District. I noticed the commercial area along the frontage: road. of Highway 6. I envisioned the potential of future commercial development similar to that along the entrance to Shenandoah and South (Yaks brine. This did not concern me due to my location on the western side of .the su6dvision;,however, I believed at some point in time it could'disturb the continuit of the neighborhood, y '~ I viewed the. proposed re-plat of this secfion of commercial ~~, ~ residential usage when visiting with Ms.. Phyllis Hobson. L applaud hec' foresight in instituting this char e. It is 'my opinion that this will uphold the conformity of he subdivision sus g marketability of the area and, .mares ~ ~ fain the pecifically, individual homes within'rhe :subdivision. i The implementation of the natural greenseaped buffer zone between the new section and ~ the access .road is an excellent idea, ~I Yn summary, I support Ms. Hobson's efforts to re- Iat the r commercial to residential. ~' P ~~ section from J Sincerely,, W 'Whittlesey ~~ Pro rt pe y Owner - NantuclG Subd. ,~ To; City of College Station Date: Aug. 4'~ 1997 From:.Glen Carter Subject: Nantucket Subdivision Re-plat Meeting -My name is Glen Carter, I am currently building a home in the KensailPoint tract which is part of Nantucket. I cannot attend the scheduled meeting for Thurs. Aug. T~. I am writing .this letter to express my feeling onthe matter. In June of 1992 I purchased 9.6 acres form Nantucket.. subdivision and re-plated and ~~ renamed the tract as Kensail Point. The tract backs up to the existing Nantucket Offices. At the time I purchased the land Phyllis Hobson fully disclosed to: me her intentions of the future build out of the `area between my .tract the: Hwy. 6. She .indicated that there would be a restaurant and other. commercial sites available along Hwy.6 which was currently plated as commercial use. I was fully aware when I purchased my tract that there could be commercial properties along the frontage of Hwy. 6 from the daann, south. In support of what Phyllis is now trying to do, I believe that it is in he best interest of the home owners of Nantucket to allow Phyllis to re-plan the above mentioned land for residential use omy and eliminate the possibility for any commercial properties in the Nantucket subdivision. My vote is to allow Phyllis to move forward with the re-plating project while acting in the best interest of the Naa~.ucket Home owners.. Thank yam. Sincerely, /~~`' i ~~ Glen H. Carter 1201 Balleylough Ct. (of Nantucket subdivision) College. Station, TX. 77842 449-696-18b7 'i i i i THE FOLLOWING :INFORMATION WAS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED NANTUCKET DEVELOPMENT ' '~~ DO YOU WANT A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD IN NANTUCKET? Phyllis Hobson filed a new plat for the last phase of the Nantucket Subdivision at~College Station Gity Hall on Wednesday 16th July 1997. This new plat shows a plan for 115 new lots to be carved out of the 60 undeveloped acres that exist at the front of Nantucket Drive on the left hand side going in. Her plan is to drive two new roads to .the left of Nantucket Dr. to serve 52 city sized hots of '~ acre each, and to use the entrances. on the access roads to serve 52 lots .which will be ~ acre each. The lots will be sold for between $30-40,.000, each. home will be a minimum of 2000 s q.ft. To see what this means to us, compare the two plats that °follow. Number 1, filed in'1992 shows the low density Z acre lots that were-planned for this area. Number 2 show .the 115 new lots. Tn the other `600 .acres of the Nantucket <Subdvision -there are only approximately 240 `other':. lots, `so with 115 new ones she is increasing the number of lots by almost 50~. Moreover, .she is :putting those lots in an area that is only 10~ the size of the rest of_Nantucket! Hence, she-is proposing 'to build a new. neighborhood in Nantucket. The reason is obvious, lot sales will .generate between $3-4,000,000. In-;the plat filed in the._courthouse and on record, the area she is proposing to subdivide shows a minimum lot size of l acre, and . thus only 25-35 new lots.. This is the minimum lot size possible . for to s on_~ a septic system. However, the reason that smaller lots are now possible is that. she petitioned College Station to annex all. the land at the front of Nantucket. last year. This succeeded, and she then entered negotiations to bring the city ..sewer that ends in Pebble Creek across Highway 6 to"Nantucket. Funds have been al ocated by the city to begin°work on extending the sewer in the fall, so that it wily be in Nantucket by the summer of next year .making .this new development possible. Both the sewer and-new neighborhood construction will involve-years of trucks, dirt,. and trash, and there is no doubt that Nantucket drive :wall be torn.. up for months as the new development is created. Do you remember how bad it was when the road. was destroyed last time? The question is what do Nantucket residents think about this? Few people know about it because we have no homeowners association.: as you may-know this is controlled by Ms. Hobson. A few of us who found out have got tsgether, and we are presenting this information to you row as we have to quickly decide what to do. Ms. Hobson's proposal goes before the College Station zoning commission on August 7"' (see below) . Ps a group of concerned Nantucket residents we want 'to prevent this new development from going ahead based on two main concerns: First, we bought-lots out here on the basis that Nantucket would be low density housing that used to mean a minimum of 1-2 acre dots. We believe that the new development would alter .the whole a° character and feeling of Nantucket. In fact, all~the initial. advertising. for Nantucket was based on the idea that the rights -of property owners would be protected, and the large lots was the principal selling point.. When you bought your lot what were you told? Did you believe that something like this could happen? Second, we believe that property values would be severely hurt- possibly by 10-20~. _ Nantucket's claim to fame is its large lots and country atmosphere. If we lose this, we will become just one more city neighborhood and subdivisions like Pebble Creek which .have good roads, schools, etc. will always have an advantage over us. Moreover, new developments are planned to the South of us. Third, it is'not clear to us that these lots:wouid sell. People who want a small lot would probably .prefer o live in-Pebble ..:.Creek, not backed up to noisy Highway 6. Why would'they,want to live in Nantucket .which has no amenities? We are-all: aware of the failure of the Nantucket retirement .home. concept. Why would it be any`dfferent forea city lot development? :':This whole area could. become an eyesore for years to come, further affecting property value's. At-present, two, Nantucket residents who are :attorneys are studying the.-plats filed of record-in the courthouse, deed restrictions, etc., to see if here, are, any legal grounds for opposing this;-new development, and there does appear to be some -hope here. There is also the sue of selling large Tots to buyers, with the understanding` that homes in °the neighoorhood will be a minimum of two acres, and then turning around and selling. small .lots. when all~the large ones are sold. If ~we can act legally we are going to have to raise money to fight a .court case... We will need to form our own homeowners commi tee and-devote time and -money to fighting this but also planning what we think the future of Nantucket should be. Beyond the legal .path, however, there is the ,zoning issue. As it was explained: to us, if,Nantucket residents can demons rate that :...they are solidly.opposed to,ths,_ and. if. they can. present a compelling case to the city council as to why it should not go hrough,- she may -not be able to .get--the rezoning ;permission that she needs to go ahead with the proposed new ;;development. The planning and zoning commission ;meets on August 7`h probably in- the College Station °conference -center on George Bush. Drive to discuss this issue. Their recommendation will be presented to the :full council ,on_ August 28`h x;robably at city hall. ,Obviously, ,given the speed_at::which the zoning issue is: moving we need to meet to `talk and decide what to do . Unless'.. enough people are prepared to do something nothing will happen. Therefore we propose that we meet at the park on the lake in Nantucket next Saturday, 26~ July at gam to discuss these. issues and how to proceed. In the.-meantime,. we encourage you to talk to your friends and neighbors in Nantucket both to make--sure they know about this issue. and to talk about the future of Nantucket. I can't give you much more information that I have in this letter, but please call me, Gareth Jones at 690-6712, if you have anything you wish to discuss before: this meeting. _ ~~ ~ ~' V . ~~ ``~ • i \ V+ ~ b `~' ~ ~ _ o In ('~ ; ~ ~. e~ ~ ~~ 7 - v '{~ ~~ V ' ~. ~0 t c- ~ ~~~~~" 151. , 1 •b ~ 3 ~' S a•Y ~ e,~ ~ .! .I ~ ~< ', 3 •f , . .Q aw _ '~• ~ :~~ ~ ~ `` ~• ~~ -- jt L~, / ~ cn ~;'.~ @ • ~ •• ~~~ ~ ,~ try ~ f_"" _ 4t vbt ~ . ~ t + -- ,~, • ~~ ~~ .Oil a3 ao~ ' ~ t • 1•:X[1I13IT "1~" ~ Y ' t ~~ ~J. J_ •e1~-^.j ~' ' 1~~ ~ ~ ~ JCS e. ~ ni ,~' ~e~ ~yM~ - l:. ___ -7 ~ ~ ~ ~ CC// \~ t~a~~ ~\` M~~ l , ~ ~ ~v s.~ a n~~>{-,~ J1 ` `. ~ _ r . -~ _ ., i'~~ i> k-~ ~ off}" ` s .~ ` Z -•`s, ~,.•~~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ' ~~ N ter. • ~ ~- ~ ,. fit: ~ iiitt>ti: t •~~ ~' /~~Y~~ ~ f~1` Q i''' `~~_~.- ,~f33Fffitt;F ~~ ~ ~ .`\ } ~ '4' 4; ~~lrc~ ~ ~ ~~ti~'. ~~1 I ~h.II IlII `y '`. ` '~ S~t~i\ =fig ~ w ~ ~ . ICI I ~ h~ ~ ; / `\ -_A... ~~. ~ ~v ~ I `i I ~~~I'I~y ~ ,,~ , i_ I ,;rtll..tv7Y,i7 '. ', S. Lirlr !I it °~ ~ 1-_, i °s ~! ~ n ufli'IILf i'SjflflFS' ~ I ~~ II ~ ~ ~ - I 1 ~ ~ rw ~ ~. ~ i I e I~f'`_1~ I. J ~t' ~ `''`~~ f ? _ J ,~ A~ 1 '~. ri .Y - 3" '~ I ~' 1tr=~- s_ ~~ ^~ ~ ~ ~~, =~i~ ~ n. '1 Z ~ ~ v'~ ~ ' I 111, C7~ S ~ !OS ~ ~ ~~ t1 ~ -~-y .'. 'v ~ i i f ~~ ~ ~ y ) 4 ~~ ~zA } T !1 0 Z " ~~~pa~ - ' 7;1 l ~'='~ - m IN6P ~ ~,~ -' L ~ f"' f) O ~ ~.-~ L t. ~ ~ ~ 'S~ - ~;~~ ~: ., . ; , ~ , ~' ~ ^~ ~`~ A ~ \ ~ l AUG-06-1997 03 33 S.E. JACOESON 4' s~rtA B.:TACOBSON ATTORNEY AT L4a7 704-A Eric 29Th Street Bryan, Tcxis 77803. <409) 8235956 Fax (409) 779.842I August 7, 1997 Mr. James `Massey Planning and Zoning-Commissioner By fax: 845-0629 409 779 8421 P.02 Dear Mr. Massey: Please be advised that I am against 'the current. request for planning caee No. 970312 regarding the Nantucket subdivision in addition to .many other residents of Nantucket. I have. been in touch with many residents who are out of town or'who will be out of town Thursdayn.ight. They are opposed Co the plan, but are unable-to apFear to express their views due to their absence. -This matter was scheduled during August when many persons are on vacation wince school is out now. We would appreciate an extension of time before the Planning and Zoning Commission rendars any decision about this matter to a low. many of the ,concerned ress.dents of Nantucket- to _return to town to participate. Thank you for your cooperation. Very t ly yours Sandra B. Jacobson TOTAL P.02 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIAENTS AND~OR PRGPERTY OWNERS OF THE • NANTUCKET SUBDIVISION, ARE OPFOSED TO THE REZONING REQUEST' (PLANNING- CASE N0. 97-312) REGARDING THE PROPOSED. MASTER PRELIMINARY PLAT F`OR APPRO~CIMATELY 65 ACRES IN THE NANTUCKET SUBDIVZ SION, .GENERALLY. Z,OCP_TED ON THE SGUTHWEST .CORNER OF NANTUCKET BRIVE AND STATE HIGHWAY 6; WHICH INCLUDES `Z'HE PROPEP.TY IN PLANNING CASE NO. 97-108. NAME: ADpFcESS: WE, T?IE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS AND/OR PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE NAN'T'UCKET. SUBDIVISION, ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING REQUEST ' (PLANNING CASE N0. 97-312) REGARDING THE PROPOSED MASTER .PRELIMINARY PL?~T FCR APPROXIMATELY 65 ACRES IN THE NANTUCKET SUBDIVISION, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SGUTHWEST CORNER OF NANTUCKET I3RIVE AND STATE HIGHWAY'b, WHICH INCLtTpES THE PROPERTY IN PLANNING CASE NO. 9?-108.. NAME: ADDRESS: ~-C'- ~~,~-~ `~ ~ ~ ~" ear ~ ll In Mul ~ ~CC ~,~~~ _ _. ~' P~ro~ ~ ~- ~,, .~ ® ~z~ ?~' ~ ~~~~y~ D~""'e' ~s~+~1LLL ~,~a CSC ! ~f~ C01/ ~~ ~r y ~~ -/1I !~ t~ , ~`~ k r~~ ~Z f ~,~~1'/,~vca~ ~~ uP ys~a ~` ~~ - a - ~/ ` rf- a Ufa C:~ ~~~~s P AUG-86-1997 8~~10 S.E. JACUESON 4®9 779 8421 P.02 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS AND/OR PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE NANTUCKET SUBDIVISION, ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING. .REQUEST ° (PLANNING CASE NO. 97-312) REGARDING THE PROPOSED MASTER PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR APPROXIMATELY 65 ACRES IN THE NANTUCKET SUBDIVISION, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NANTUCKET DRIVE AND STATE HIGHWAY S, WHICH INCLUDES THE PROPERTY IN PLANNING CASE NO. 97-108. o TOTAL P.02 NAME: ADDRESS: •~ WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIAENTS AND/OR PRGPERTY OWNERS OF THE • .NANTUCKET SUBDIVISION, ARE OPFO~ED TO THE REZONING REQUEST (PLANNING CASE N0. 97-312) REGARDING THE PRGPOSED MASTER PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR APPROXIMATELY 65 ACRES IN THE NANTUCKE'~ SUZ3DIVISIGN, GENERALLY LOCP_TED ON THE. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NANTUCKET DRIVE AND STATE HIGHWAY 6 , WHICH IDTCLUL7ES THE PROPEP.TY IN PLANNING .CASE NO. 97-108. NAME: ADDRESS: WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS AND/OR PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE 'i ~ NANTUCKET SUBDIVISION, ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING REQUEST (PLANNING CASE NO, 97-312) REGARDING THE PROPOSED MASTER PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR APPROXIMATELY 65 ACRES IN THE NANTUCKET SUBDIVISION, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NANTUCKET DRIVE AND STATE HIGHWAY 6, WHICH INCLUDES THE PROPERTY IN PLANNING CASE NO. 97-108. NAME: ADDRESS: • WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS AND/OR PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE NAIv"I'UCKET SUBDIVISION, ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING REQUEST (PLANNING CASE N0. 97-312) REGARDING THE PROPOSED MASTER PRELIMTNARY PLp,T FOR APPROXIMATELY 65 ACRES IIv' THE NANTUCKET SUEDIVzSIpN, GENERALLY LOCP.TED ON THE SGUTHWEST CORNER OF NANTUCKET I3RIVE AND STATE HIGHWAY 6, WHICH INCLUDES THE PROPEP.TY IN PLANNING CASE NO. 97-108. 1~TAME s XDDRESS s AUG-06-1997 02=56 S.B. JACQBSOI~J 4@9 7?9 8421 R,02 • WE, THE UNDERSIGNED.. RESIDENTS ANDjflR PRpPERTY OWNERS OF THE NANTUCKET SUSDIVISIC3N, ARE C?PFQSED TO THE REZONING REQUEST ' (PLANNING CASE Nt?, 97-312) REGARrlING THE PRflPflSEb MASTER PRELINtINARY PIaAT FOR APFRflXII~ATELY' 65 ACRES IN ` THE lANTUCKET SUBDIVISION, GENERALLY. LOCATED QN :THE SOUTHWEST CORNER {)F NANTUCKET DRIVE AND STATE HIGHWAY 6, WHICH INGLt7DES THE PlzC3PERTY IN PLANNING CASE' N(?. 97-1~8. NAME; ADDRESS: s ~" I ~ TOTAL P.02 WE, T?iE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS AND/OR PRGPERTY OWNERS OF THE • NANTUCKET SUBDIVISION, ARE OPFOSED TO THE REZONING REQUEST ` CPLANNING CASE N0. 97-312), REGARDING THE PROPOSED MASTER PRELIMINARY PLAT. FOR. APPROXIMATELY 65 ACRES IN THE NANTUCKET SUBDIVISIQN, .GENERALLY Z,OCP.TED ON THE .SOUTHWEST CQRNER OF NANTUCKET DRIVE AND STATE-HIGHWAY 6, WHICH INCLUI;ES THE PROPEP.TY IN PLANNING CASE NO. 97-108. w ~~ ~W ,~~ ~ z ~ _~~~~~ ,,'~ w ~.,I H - ,. ~ x ~~ ~ ~ ,~fi ~.~ ~~o ~ ~~ _-- ~°`~ ~ f "~ u C y T-'_ i~~1 ~, ~~g ~'i I I- '0 ~ J'_ ~ - - ~~ ~~~~~P ~ : ~ ~ ~ .. ~1~ .~_~ -- ~ _ ,~- ~ -~~ -, a a ~~ < ~~~ ~~ _ ,, ~ I ~ - ~ ~ ~' ~ c ~~~ % r ~ ~~ ~ ~ f r w"' ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~3 3 i ~~~ f 1 v - ~ ` _ ~ ~~ /~ ~ ~; ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~/~~ s I ~ ~~ ~~ ~ -- ~~ ` --~ ~ , -~ -- \\ ~ j i ~` _ `~A ~~ A T-__. \ \ r ~ ~~~. I ~~,~~ ,\ \ i ~` i I ~ -- - - --ter-- ~ Q ~ a w 3 ~ QQ ° ~ 7R ~ o z ~ 0 COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 MEMORAleTDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commissi n FROM: Jane R. Kee, City Planner RE: Nantucket Master Plat an zoning BATE: August 12, 1997 As you will recall, at the last P&Z meeting a motion to table consideration of the master preliminary plat failed. There was some confusion during the meeting as to the effect of a tabling of a plat:` The°State Statute requires that action be taken onplats within 30 days of when a plat is formally filed with the:City. -This date of "formal filing" is not defined. The statute refers only to final plats. It does not address preliminary plats. The City's local ordinance calls for action within 30 days of formal filing whether consideration is of a preliminary plat or a final plat. Tabling is not considered an action. The only actions are to approve,'approve with conditions or deny. A denial does. not preclude a developer from going onto Council for final consideration. Another motion to defer action to the next P&Z meeting was made and approved. Therefore, the Commission must take action on this plat at he2lst. meeting or it is considered,automatically approved. The item does not call for a public hearing or any notification and it is at the Chairman's discretion whether to allow any public comment on this platting issue. The Commission also tabled consideration of the rezoning request of the 6 acre ract located. in the Nantucket area, at the last P&Z;meeting This item does require a public hearing and proper notification. The public hearing:was..opened and closed at hat last meeting: 'There has been no advertisement for another public hearing before the P&Z. The Commission must vote to take this item offthe table for. consideration. Then the Commission may discuss the item, make a motion for approval, approval with conditions, denial or another'tabling. There has been no additional public hearing advertised, therefore, it is not advisable to allow public input again on this item. There will be another public hearing advertised when this item. goes before City Council.- It will not go forward to Council until the P&Z makes a recommendation. As a courtesy, staff mailed out notices of this P&Z meeting. The notices stated that there will be no public hearing. on the rezoning: and that it is at the Chairman's discretion whether to allow comment on the plat. A copy is included with this memorandum. Home of Texas A&M University 08/1!/97 12:55 FAY ~t09 693 X243 M D G C~ 002 1~~LI.N~CI.PA~ DET~,~~OPMEIV~T GRQrIP d0? I!olletngr~ 3~rive F_a,t • College Station. l2rrts 77r~.J0 • -X09.693-~3~1 • FA,1;• •t09-693-~3=~3 fn~inccring, Surti~cyinG, Plar~nin~ tmd Environmental [.;nnsull~nts i'1! _' 1A' r ,~~ ~, TU: Colle~,c Station Planning .and Zoning Cozntn.ission FROM: 'Larry Wells DATT: flugust 1~, I997 SUBJECT: Revisions to the Master Plan of Nantucket as cansid~red and tabled on august 7, 1997. The Master Plan has been revised in order to melt tl,e concerns expressed on August 7, 1997 at the P&Z meeting by the neighborhood. We have met as many of those concerns as possible as described belowa 1. 1Lccess to Nantucket Drive has been restricted by deleting two streets from Nantuelcet Drive and reducing the number of lets on Sandollar Cove. 2. A continuous 7~ Toot buffer is provided for the whale length along Highway C. 3, A 40 i~~ot buffer has. been provided along Nantucl~ct Drive i~rom the existing landscaped area to the rear of the first Iot fronting on SandctIlar Cove. 4. All the property within tl~e city Iinuts now is renamed South IIampton and will not be a part ofNantucket Subdivision or Nantucket T~Iozneowner r'~ssociaton. This will eliminate the right to use Nantucket facilities_ 5. The new plan loses six lots. Tlus makes tho grass acreage of. the area within the city limits 2.13 Iots per acre. We withdraw the zoning request currently tabled due to the changes of the Master Plazl. The new zozling request will rezone tl~e entire land that is within the city iiznits shown on the new Master plan rrotl~ ao to Rl. The previous Master Plar- oF65.26 acres had a total. gross density of 2.36 lots per acre. This new Master Pian reduces the density to 3.?7 Lots per acre. Larry Wells AL DEVELOPMENT GROUP 1~7IINICIP , 203 Holleman Drive East • College Station, Texas 77840.409-693-5359 • FAX.• 409-693-4243 I leering, Surveying, Planning and Environmental Consultants u July 16, 1997 Zoning Official City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77840 Re: Variance Request for Master Preliminary Plat of Nantucket Phases 6, 7, 8; 8A, 8B, 9, 10, 11 & 12 and Oversize Participation. Dear Madam or Sir: This plat represents the last portions of Nantucket to be developed. All previous phases were developed in accordance with College Station E. T. J. standards and under Brazos County regulations. Streets were developed under'the County guidelines aThe i ht d ay w dths vary Now this Master Plan is a blending of E. T. J. and Clty standards. g from standard City policy due to conveyance of flooding in the right-of--way and to allow drainage where storm sewers are restricted: We request variances on street size per right-of--way width (8-G.10) and sidewalk requirements as per right-of--way width (8-M.1) as follows. Street R.O.W. Width Pvmnt Width Sidewalk 38~ 1 side only Mariner's Cove 70' 38' 1 side only Sand Dollar Cove 70' 27, None Sand Dollar Cove 50' portion 27, 1 side only Ebbtide Cove 60' 27' 1 side only Windrift Cove 60' ', 27' 1 side only Cranberry Court 60' 27' None Cranberry Court 50' portion 70' 27' None Beacon 2T None Sconset 70' 3 g~ None Wayfarer Lane 70' *Note: Leisure Island is/will be private'street development. 000025-c.41-23 (2637) J ~~ ~' SAM 65 acres of land, approximately 13 of which are outside the city limits. ~~-k ~~~" r~~~ ORIGINAL MAP ., ~'~ 1983 -area approved on master plan for large lot rural residential.development and commercial and office along highway: Intention is to change to all single family development. Annexed into the City last year. `Developer's intention - to build out remainder of what was part of the Nantucket. Subdivision with residential lots that will partly be in the City Limits and connected to City sewer through an impact fee line. No impact fees approved by the City Council for this area at this time. FIRST PLAT TO PNZ MPP with lot sizes ranging from 1/4 acre to just over 1/2 acre was submitted to the PNZ at their 8-7 meeting. Plat showed 3 streets accessing Na~itucket Drive. After much: opposition to the smaller lot sizes and much discussion, action on the plat was deferred until the next meeting to give the residents oaf Nantucket and the developer more opportunity to resolve differences. REVISED PLAT -density map By the 8-21 meeting changes had been made to the plat: No access to Nantucket. Drive, Landscape buffers along the highway and Nantucket Drive, Subdivision name was changed to South Hampton so that lots would not be apart of Nantucket nor allowed to use private facilities,. But density remained the same. with a loss of only 3 lots. __~, c:\windows\winword\rez\97-312nt.doc t -~ DENSITY CALCS. ,~ Overall gross density in Nantucket right now, not including the Leisure Island section (an area devoted to smallet~ retirement lots on private streets) averages 2 acres per lot. Leisure Island averages very small lots at .17 acres per lot. Average gross density of the new phases is .46 acres per lot. Overall. avg. density of all existing and proposed phases is approximately 1.4 acres per lot. LAND USE PLAN Low density single family development -density range of .5 to 3 acres per dwelling unit. Overall average density of Nantucket with the proposed new phases falls within this range. ,~ ~~ ~ U / ~ I Y ~~~~~ a1PPOSITION Opposition came from Nantucket residents and centered on the smaller lots being proposed. Residents perceived a change in the character of the neighborhood with the small lot sizes. Residents also felt that Nantucket had always been advertised as a large lot rural single family subdivision and that smaller lots were contrary to this representation. Residents felt the integrity of their neighborhood would be violated with the change to lots this much smaller. They did indicate at they final hearing that 1/2 acre lots, although smaller than those presently in Nantucket, would be more desirable.. Those .minutes. are in your packets. This plat was denied by the Planning & Zoning Commission (5-2 vote) at their ~ August 21st meeting. c:\windows\winword\rez\97-312nt. doc i ~!F_ ~~ 1 i RECOMMENDATION Approval due to compliance with the land use plan and the fact that the average .density falls within the acceptable range shown on the land use plan as well as approval of the sidewalk variance request and street variances .(noted in your packet) with the following comment: pplicant requested varianc to sidewalk r uirements in order to discourage ~~ r idents of this subdivisio from moving into nd through Nantucket. App-licant als requested variance to the street specificati (refer to Engineerin comm s . Staffs orts both variance requests.. ~/`$ _~ This plat can be developed only once an acceptable zoning classification is placed on the. property. This plat does not meet the minimum requirements of the current A-O district. R-1 single family zoning w veld a this development, but wou d also allow much smaller lot s es than pro osed. The City would b obligated to approve any future cha es in the pl as long as changes me t the R-1 restrictions. t The A-OR district requ'~res minimum acre lots but this does of meet the applicant's needs. The PUD zoning is th only district w ere the zoning-and plat re tied together and thus th only one where's changes to the plat w uld have to come back before b th PNZ and Counci through the public he ring rocess: These ch nges would be part o rezoning and there ore, both .dies would hav more discretion in revie and considerati It does not ap ar that thi plat as configured could meet City's P requi s. This is not a public hearing item nor an item that requires notification. However, the person representing the residents ofNantucket was notified of thin meeting two weeks ago and there are individuals here who I'm sure would like to address the Council. There were petitions that are not in your packet that were submitted in opposition prior to the first PNZ meeting containing 76 names. They state opposition to the rezoning that was original submitted and later withdrawn and the original plat. There were no additional written petitions submitted at the 8-21 meeting when the revised plat was considered. These petitions do not have the effect of requiring more than a majority vote of Council. c:\windows\winword\rez\97-312nt. doc REVISED PLAT -DENSITY MAP ~- Council Action Options: Approve the preliminary plat as submitted or with conditions or deny the plat with" stated reasons for denial. Council may defer action but local ordinance requires that Council must act within 45 days of PNZ action or the plat is considered approved. PNZ acted on August 21, 1997. October 5, 1997 would be the 45th day from that action. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Engineering Information and Notification Information 4. Presubmission Conference Report or PRC report 5. P&Z Minutes of 8-7 and 8-21 Policy Issue Statement: Civic. Pride Citizens benefit from well-planned, attractive residential and commercial areas, and from preserving historic areas. Comprehensive Plan GoaUObjective Statements: Goal # 3 -Land Use -College .Station should continue to protect, ~~ preserve and .enhance existing and future. neighborhoods.. Objective f, J 3_1 -College Station should continue to protect the .integrity of residential areas by minimizing intrusive and incompatible land uses and densities: Goal # 1 -Housing- College Station should continue to provide an appropriate supply` o~Fhousing with a wide variety of housing types and costs. c:\windows\winword\rez\97 312nt.doc ~hanges to the Subdivision Ordinance are bein proposed asp of the on- s~re g the develop t process whic is high Counci pri rity. Staff as o receive advice om our le a1 dep ent tha cert ' verb'age n eds to be eluded ' our zo ' g and s bdivision egulati ns to stye en i Ci~y' ability compliance with ese regulatio - ~. Development has been defined (Section 3) evelopment cans the new construction of ,enlar ent of, recon ` tion or nversion f building, s c e or improve nt, the use of any ope r gardles of wh ther there a ass fated bail ' gs, stru tares or ' prow en s; o the s division f land ' to two 0 ore p s by deed, ontra for dee o a o er ethod inclu ' ase. Excepti s agricultural u on 5 acres or mop where there is no anticipated other development. ' Section 4 describes when Plats, Prelim. Plats and Master Plans are required. ~ These changes require that property be platted prior to development In the past, plats have been required only where there was a property division taking place. This does not allow the City to require the developer to extend certain infrastructure in compliance with the.Comprehensive Plan. Exactions of this kind can be achieved only through the platting process. Section 4 further states that no permits or utility service will be granted until platting has occurred l~ There is a compliance section added stating that improvements. must be constructed at the time of development (Section 4-G) Proposed language in Section 4 E further clarifies what happens when a development is proposed and there is inadequate infrastructure capacity. It states that either the develop pays for improvements, waits for the City to do so, or enters into a development agreement with the City for .cost participation. A final proposed change deals with the timing for action on preliminary plats and master preliminary plats and plans. Section 6-B.3.4. changes the time for action from. 30 days to 90 days. This will allow the Commission flexibility to table a preliminary plat when there. are major planning issues to be resolved or additional information that needs to be researrhed and presented. pp~~ J~~ ~- ~~ ~~~'~Stffrpt„97-808" q~---3~2 MEMORANDUM TO: Councilman Dick Birdwell FROM: George K. Noe, City Manager DATE: May 1, 1998 RE: South Hampton Concerns e~~ You asked that I provide you with a response to a number of the issues that were raised in Phyllis Hobson's letter of Apri17, 1998 regarding the South Hampton Development and the solution that was reached with her that enabled her to proceed. In the first section of Ms. Hobson's memo, she describes her discussions with staff regarding the extension of wastewater services to .her development. Although I would question some of the details of her description of the summer 1996 meeting, Ms. Hobson's summary of the outcome is accurate. She indicated that she wanted to develop South Hampton to higher, more urban densities and would anticipate it being an R-1 level. She would need to have wastewater services to make such densities possible. She discussed possible cooperative efforts. I indicated that past policy allowed for service only. inside our City limits and that the area would have to be annexed. We further suggested using the impact fee process for .funding the line since such a method ensured equity of participation on the part of all who benefit from the line. It was noted that the impact fee line would have to be approved by City Council. We closed with an understanding that Ms. Hobson would request annexation and that the City would proceed with work to establish an impact fee area to establish the needed wastewater line to the area. There was no discussion of water service issues at that meeting. I would state for the record that staff followed through on its commitment to Ms. Hobson in this regard. The impact fee studies and hearings were performed and the staff recommendation was consistent with our discussion with her. The Council chose to approve something less than that request. Instead, the final decision was to require Ms. Hobson to pay for the extension of service under Hwy 6. This decision concerned her. She also was concerned that I did not object to Council's .decision. I did elect not to comment further during the Council debate of this issue. We had made the recommendation as promised and Ms. Hobson was getting 90% of what she had asked for and I had no reason to restate the staff position. That was a judgment call on my part and I'm sorry if that decision upset Ms. Hobson at that time. P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764-3510 The other major concern expressed by Ms. Hobson related to the water service questions. All of us who have been involved with this project admit (including Ms. Hobson) that we didn't spend time discussing the water service issues earlier because we just didn't recognize it as a problem. In point of fact, we should have seen it coming giving the uniqueness of the situation. The area is served by Wellborn Water and Bryan electric and has no municipal wastewater save that provided by the Nantucket private plant. Staff notes show that water service and fire flows were discussed at an April, 1997 pre-development meeting. There was no follow-up on that discussion by the developer, her consultauit or City staff. The issue did surface in January as work on the. final plat and construction plans were underway. The City's position pursuant to past Council policy was that the area would have to receive water service from the City of College Station. This issue came. up during a meeting between staff and the Wellborn Water Supply .Board and it was generally concluded .that the area should be served by the City. since Wellborn was (is) not prepared to service at urban standards with required fire flows. I truly believe that Ms. Hobson expected to be able to utilize Wellborn for this development. She explored options for City of CS connection (one down the west side. of Highway 6 and one crossing under from a line that runs on the .east side of Highway 6), she found he cost to be prohibitive for her'development. Ms. Hobson. did attempt to have a meeting with various staff members on February 10. It was coordinated by MDG. Jim Callaway did arrive late due to a prior meeting running late; Mark Smith was delayed because of flooding problems that occurred with a storm event earlier that morning. Neither Bill Riley nor Veronica Morgan received anotice/invite. The meeting .did not -- produce any resolution of the issues. I was contacted and asked to arrange a meeting to include the Mayor. and .various staff members to discuss Phyllis' concerns on the wastewater extension decision and the use of City utilities. I indicated that I would be pleased to have a meeting that would include her'folks, the .Mayor and myself. The issues I had been told were to be discussed were Council policy issues and the staff members were not in a position to make any change so that their presence' would not be productive. Ms. Hobson elected not to hold a meeting with the Mayor and I. Instead, she began to explore the process for deannexation. Mayor McIlhaney and I met with Ms. Hobson and representatives of MDG (including North Barden) on April 21. At that time, it was proposed by MDG that the City serve South Hampton "through" the previously constructed lines that were now part of the Wellborn system. Customers would be City of College Station customers with a meter at the entry to the development, enabling the two of us to net out the South Hampton usage. It was also suggested that the area could meet the necessary fire flow standards under that scenario. I agreed to go over this approach with staff and to let North Barden know of the response the next afternoon. In visiting with staff the next day, I found out that this idea had been discussed only once and had been rejected because it was believed that Wellborn would not agree. After review, we responded to Mr. Barden that the City ~~vould agree to serve through the Wellborn system if service wasmetered to allow for net water use to be determined, the customers would be College Station customers, the service would come from the lines installed to City .standards and inspected by the City, the. subdivision would meet all the fire flow .standards and that the Wellborn Water Supply Corp.. agree to that arrangement. That position was communicated to North Barden on Apri122. He arranged a meeting that included several members of City staff (Bill Riley, Jim Callaway) and representatives of Wellborn Water Supply Corp.. After much discussion, the representatives of WWSC (under pressure. from Ms. Hobson and somewhat reluctantly) agreed to the arrangement. With the ability to provide water service in this way,. Ms. Hobson was .prepared to move forward with her original project. To that end, she 'withdrew her petition for deannexation. I personally .believe that we had these problems with this particular development because the developer believed that she could utilize Wellborn water and we did not make our .questions regarding water service known early on. This was discussed during our April 23 meeting and generally agreed to by all the parties. This area represents a unique situation in that the area is part of Wellborn service territory but it has lines that are built to a higher. city standard. As a staff, we have noted the difficulty that we had in this case and have agreed that'..` we need to review our policies and practices relative to water service to make sure that we do not have a recurrence of this problem. I hope this is responsive to your request. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. cc: Bill Riley John Woody Jim Callaway eronica Morgan 08/19!97 11:12 FAY 409 693 4243 bI D G 0]002 ~. ~ SOUTH HAMPTON Formerly NANTUCKET PHASE ! (20 Lots) PHASE 5 (I5 Lots Total ..7.873 Acres Total 8.873 Acres ROW 1.486 Acres (1.3091* ROW 1.345 Acres L.177Z . Net _, 6.387 Acres (6.560)* a ~~- ~~~k ~ 7.525. Acres (7.b96)* c so~~~°-F ( ) Lots/Acre 1.993 1,94 * ~ 5~,~/Ca~` Lots/Acre 3..130 3.05 * ~• 3~ ~~~~ ( ) PHASE 2 (2 l r ,its Total S.47G Acres ROW 1.407 Acres (1.231)* N~ et 7,069 Acres (7.245)* ~ ~ ~' `~,~~`~ LotslAcre 2.970.{2.s9)* ~ ~~ ,~ j~o_~; PHASE 3 (12 Lots Total 4.457 ,acres ROW 1.434.Acres 0.923 Net 3.423 Acres (3.534)* e~ z`l ~-~t~{ LotslAcre 3.5 06 (3.3 9) * ~ ~`~ ~.~ (~~ PHASE 6 (17 Lots Total 9.403 Acres ROW 2.041 Acres 1.865 N= 7.362 Acres (?.535)* .y 4~3,~~f°~ - Lots/Acre 2,309 (2.25)* ~ 5~~w~(o~ PHASE 7 ( 14 Lots Total 8.472 Acres ROW 0.851 Acres 0.782 * / ~o~ ~~ Net / 7,591. Acres (7.690)* ° s _ LotslAcre 1.844 (1.82)'~~ ~ Co 6 ,~-~(_~( PHASE 4 (l3 Lots Total 4.588 Acres ROW. 1.585 Acres (1.434~* Net 3.000 ?.cres (3.154)* ~ 2~~ Lots/Acre 4.333 (4.12)* a ~,~- TOTAL hots 112 Acres 52.14 ROW 9.782 (8.74)* / ~. 42.36_{{43.417)* v~'~'~f ~°~ Lots/Acre 2.b4 (2.57)* ., ~~, g~~(~( *Shows the normal density if constructed in'another developed part of the city. We have lamer ROW's due to the transition between county and city standards. aoaozs-~.3a-z~~za~i~ .~ ~ ~ s~~ ~~~~~~ .~ -~ NANTUCKET PIIASE 1 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 40 88.01 2.20 2 8 15.1.1 1.89 3 9 26.79 2.98 4 6 9.60 1.60 5 ~~ 9.85 1.41 _ _ NANTUCKET PHASE 2 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 6 15 39.97 2.66 7 23 64.22 2.79 8 6 23.16 3.86 9 7 14.63 2.09. 10 8 16.00 2.00 11 5 9.00 1:80 12 6 11.88 1.98 13 2 14.35 7,18 14 2 3.77 1.88 NANTUCKET3 "~ Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 16 6 9.4 1.57 17 3 4.14 1.38 18 4 6.0~ 1.50 ~ _ NANTUCKET4 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 19 5 7.16 1.43 20 3 4.29 1.43 21 4 5.26 1.32 22 3 . 4.76_ 1..59 ~ I NANTUCKET 5 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 23 3 3.57 1.19 24 5 7.42 1.48 25 4 _ 5.19 1.30 i~ l (~ 3 KENSAIL POINT Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 6 8.38 1.40 r / ~~'~" ~~~ ~~ ^ ~ ~~a~i Al ~~ "~ ~'~ ~~ ~~ ~- ~ ILL ~, ~ I~ SNUG HARBOR PHASE 1 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot l 4 6.16 1.54 SNUG HARBOR PHASE Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac, Per Lot 1 8 6.73 0.84 PELICAN'S POINT COVE Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 7 10.77 1.54 > i~ LEISURE ISLAND (former) Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 79 13.17 ~ 0.16'7 LEISURE ISLAND (new) Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 30 5.22 0.17 PROPOSED PHASES NANTUCKET PHASE 6 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 6 1.32 0.220 2 4 1.55 0.388 3 9_. 1.90 0.211 _ NANTUCKET PHASE 7 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 11 2.15 0.195 2 16 3.9 0.244 _ ~7 , ~~2 NANTUCKET PHASE 8 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave.. Ac. Per Lot 1 20 6.19 0.310 ~~~~~~ ~ ~G~ ~ ~~' O ~,E? e ~-e-ems--~ . ~'Z`~ ~ ~~~~-rte.. 1~ . C~- ~ C~~ ~2~9 ~~' -~ ~. ~~ ~~ l~~ ~ ~~ v n ~ ~ ~ - ~~T NANTUCKET PHASE 8A ~t , ~~~ ~ .~ i ~ Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 3 3.306 1.102 NANTUCKET PHASE 8B Block # of Lots. Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 4 4.613 1.153 NANTUCKET PHASE 9 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 7 2.57 0.368 NANTUCKET PHASE 10 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 12 6.94 0.578 NANTUCKET PH ASE 11 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Per Lot 1 8 4.59 0.574 2 8 3.59 0.449 ~ ~ _ .5I NANTUCKET PH ASE 12 Block # of Lots Total Acreage Ave. Ac. Fer Lot 1 14 7.67 0.548 *NOTE: AZZ acreages exclude streets (with the exception of Leisure Island) ~~ `e l/~ ~. ~~ ~~ ~~ "~I { ~~'4 ~-~nl~ ~`~'F~/~~; a? ' ~ MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP 203 Holleman Drive East • College Station, Texas 77840. 409-693-5359 • FAX.• 409-693-4243 Engineering, Surveying, Planning and Environmental Consultants ~. July 16, 1997 Zoning Official City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77840 Re: Variance. Request for Master Preliminary Plat of Nantucket Phases 6, 7, 8, 8A, 8B, 9, 10, 11 & 12 and Oversize Participation. Dear Madam or Sir: This plat represents the last portions of Nantucket to be developed. All previous phases were developed in accordance with'College Station E. T. J. standards and'under Brazos County regulations. Streets were developed under the County guidelines as no curb and with bar ditches Now this Master Plan is a blending of E. T. J. and City standards. The right-of--way widths vary from standard: City policy due` to conveyance. of flooding in the right-of--way and to allow drainage where storm sewers are restrictedl. We request variances on street size per right-ofway width (8-G.10) and sidewalk requirements as per right-of-way width (8-M.1) as follows: Street R.O.W. Width Pvmnt Width Sidewalk Mariner's Cove 70' 38' 1 side only Sand Dollar Cove 70' 38' 1 side only Sand Dollar Cove 50' portion 2T None Ebbtide Cove 60' 27' 1 side only Windrift Cove 60' 27' 1 side only Cranberry Court 60' 2T 1 side only Cranberry Court. 50' portion 2T None Beacon 70' 27' None Sconset 70' 27' None Wayfarer Lane 70' 38' None *Note: Leisure Island is/will be private street development. 000025-c.41-23(2637) ,^ _ Zoning Official Page 2 July 16, 1997 Sanitary Sewer will be considered. for oversize participation from Alum Creek to this Master Plan. Also, any line that needs,to service adjacent areas through this subdivision will be considered. Currently .there is no public sewer to Nantlacket. The sanitary sewer proposed to run along Alum Creek .from Highway 6 to the existing city main has not been sized, located as to exact position, or any depths determined. Any developer reimbursements or oversize participation will follow prior. to final platting. Please call if you have any question regarding this matter Sincerely, ~~~~ arry Wells President 000025-c.41-23 (263 7)