Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous07i23s90 11 45 $..409 775 6699 ~~ .. _.-.• ~ ~e~r rwl~+lA1CC~lA1r_ IRI(~ MCCLURE ENGR INCC^h/ P. 01 L ~,~ IVI(a~LVr•1G Give;i~~.~--~ ~~~....~, ~~..j. July 23, 1998 Ms. Veronica Morgan, P.E. Department of Development Services City of College Station P.O. Box 99ti0 College Station, Texas 77842 --w--~ ; ~~.;~, ~ Re: Uversize Participation for West Ridge Drive in Steeplechase Subdivision Dear Veronica: Following our conversation Tuesday regarding the phasing scheme of the Steeplechase Subdivision,l computed the cost of West Ridge Drive in each of the three phases currently being planned. They are as follows: Phase I $ 9,725.27 Phase II 14,171.12 Phase IiI 3.890. ] I Total $27,786.50 If oversize parlicipatian is approved by the City of College Station, please prepare the appropriate accounting documents so the developers can draw upon these funds as each phase is constructed. Thank you. Sincerely, Kent Laza P.E. G~ xc: Jane Kee 1722 Broadmoor, Suite 210 • Bryan, Texas 77802 • {409} 776-6700 • FAX (409) 776.6699 ~ _ _ __ ..nUDGERS . GT ~ __ DRAfdER: 1 ~ DATE: 5/27/98 86 RECEIPT: 8814475 DESCRIPTION. 8TY _ AMOUNT TP TM " I~ _ ~ MISG PLANNING CH '' ~ X288.80 2D CK ~ . I __ .._~- MGCLURE'ENGINEERING MASTER PRELIMINARY PLAT HUNTERS RIDGE CK. 4895 C I LH :-. I ii I I TIME: 11:44:43 ::::.. I ; TOTAL PERSONAL GHEGK (288.80 ~ ,, AMOUNT TENDERED I X200.08 ~ THANK YOU ~~ ~ _ _ ~I, ~~~ ~; II III '~, ~~ i i ,'l ~I, _ i i June 2, 1998 Michael McClure, P.E., R.P.L.S. McClure Engineering INC. 1722 Broadmoor Dr. Bryan, Texas 77802 Dear Mr. McClure, This letter is to clarify our comments regarding the Zone "A" shown on FEMA FIRM Pnap panel #182 and the proposed development of the "Hunter's Ridge Subdivision." Our drainage ordinance, which is modeled after FEMA's regulations, states that: j "In areas of special flood hazard where base flood elevations have not ' been established, base flood elevation data shall be generated for ~ subdivision. proposals and other proposed development including manufactured home parks and subdivisions which are greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, whichever is less." ,I In recent phone conversations with Michael Baker Jr., specifically Monther S. Madanat, regarding what the FEMA regulations state in this case we were told the following. FEMA is interested in having the floodplain mapped inareas upstream of an undetermined "A" Zone if during the 400 year rainfalF.eventflooding depths are equal to or greater than 1 foot in depth. Developments in those areas. shall submit a hydraulic study to the Floodplain Administrator in order to determine that the flooding depths are less thane 1 foot for the 100 year event. FEMA is not interested in mapping those areas. where the width of the floodplain is too narrow to properly show on the FIRM, i.e. areas where the 100 year flood is or is nearly contained within the channel. Please call us if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Veronica Morgan, P.E. W. Paul Kaspar Assistant. City Engineer Graduate .Engineer xc: Shirley Volk, :Development Coordinator Joel Mitchell, P.E., Chief Design Engineer, McClure Engineering .; ...:...::....:.:.::.........: ...~ ......:.::.::........:..:.::::~--~-:..:.:.:.:.....:.n---- .-~--~.:::..:......:. ~~ Shine Volk -Fwd Re Namur. subdivisions. Forwarded .. .. ....::::::..:.. . .:.......:...:..:.... Page. 1. From: Eric Hurt To: JMIES~CITY OF COLLEGE BTATION,CITY HALL Date: 5/27!98 Z:Q6PM Subject: Fwd: Rec Naming subdivisions -Forwarded I don't like a name being duplicated that designates a location, regardless of whether it is a street and a subdivision. 07f21~90 14 05 ~ 404 776 6699 MCCLURE ENGR %NG P, 01 q~ 3i~ ~C McCLURE ENGINEERING, INC. July 2l, 1998 Ms. Jane Kee City Planner Department of Development Services .City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Oversize Participation for West Ridge Drive in Steeplechase Subdivision Dear Jane: Attached is an estimate ofthe oversize participation by the City of College Station on West. Ridge Drive in the Steeplechase Subdivision. The estimated differential cost between a 28 ft. street and. a 39 ft. street is 527,786.54. The unit costs I used to develop this estimate'are based on recent bids we received for similar construction. Since the time of development is unknown, I have included an allowance for inflation in the unit costs. If you have questions, please contact me at your convenience. Thank you. Sincerely, Kent Lana, P.Ec~ 1722 Broadmoor, Suite 2t0 Bryan, Texas 77802 (409) 776-6700 FAX (449) 77b-6699 ~'~ 07f21f98 14:07 ~ 409 776 6699 MGCLURE ENGk YNC P.02 ~. _. , r~ ~j~ r7 'v0~, w ~ '~ O, V1 . p'' ~ U P N ~a~~. ,~ . ~ -~ aai ~ a~ ~ V' O ~-t O •~ O U "n O O O O ~!1 N Q\ v1 N O O ~ S O ~ p ~ 000 ~ . t~ M i 'Ct' N ~O ~ *"' r ~ N v y M bA O O O ~-" O O V1 N O O ~ U N o°o ~ oho ~ ~ ..~ N o~ ,-. ~ M N N ~ ~ 00 N M O O~ O~ M • ~ N M ~n d~ et O O O O~ ~ O~ O O O O V .-K N (V v O ~ O ~ 3 •--~ N ~ •-+ N N ~ v, ~-+ Pis OD l~ M O M ~ N ~` N M M M ,~ a ... C ~ •-~ O p v~ ~ O ~; v ~V o, M t; oo ~ A ~-' •~ ~ ~, a, ~ cJ 'a Vi Vd -A Vl 'L3 o . :, ~ . .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ Q4 ~ V Q -~ a w V ~ ~o i~ ~ ~ .~ N M 'ct N r--~ .~ _ ~ r~°' -7 ~ k c ~s` __ 07i21~40 14105 a 409 776 6699 McCLURE ENGR INC P.01 ~C~ McCLURE ENGINEERING, INC. July 21,:.1998 Ms. Jane Kee City Planner Department of Development Services City of Collegc Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Oversize Participation for West Ridge Drive in Steeplechase Subdivision Dear Jane: Attached is an estimate ofthe oversize participation by the City of College Station on West Ridge Drive in the Steeplechase Subdivision. The estimated differential cost between a 28 ft. street snd a 39 ft. strcct is $27,786.50. The unit costs I used to develop this estimate are based on recent bids we received for similar construction. Since the. time. of development is unknown, I have included an allowance for inflation in the unit costs. If you have questions, please contact me at your convenience. Thank you. Sincerely, ~C.. Kent Lana, P.E 1722 Sroadmoor. Suite 2t0 • Bryan, Texas 77802- •.(409) 776-6700 FAX (409) 776-6699 @7/21/98 Y4: 07 $ 409 776 6699 MCCLURE ENGR INC P, 02 9 y e.+ N G: ° y 'fl '~3 d O~ ° ~ C ,a O~ ..-~ c U ~ ^^ ~ . ,. ~' ~~ ~ ~ ti.t .~ a 0 U O p O N' ~~ O~ N O 0 ~ H ~ N , M v O O O .-. O p v1 N O O V •-+ N ~D ~ O tt ~ ~ ~ N Q~'r !~' 00 N M ~ O O~ ~ O~ N M , ~ N ~ V 1 ~ O ~ ~ O O V ...: N tj v p ~°- p tIi 3 '~ td ^' N ~ N N ~ P~ ~, 00 M [~ .~ M M O M M ~ N ~ N M M M a .~ ~ ~~ o o ~ ~ o ~ 0 2 w >, >, >. V ~~ Vf H fA N o •. , ~ ~' . _.G a~ a~ ~ ~ ~ V «~ a~ a~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ w ~ ~ r.+ ... N t+1 '~t N 1 10106/98 TUE 15:50 FAX 409 776 3089 BOSSIER CHRYSLR DODGE 1~j001/002 BRAZOS TRIAD LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP, LTD. STEEPLECHASE SIIBDIVISIUN. FACSiI-+i1LE 'TRANSMIT'TAL SHEET TC~: i7tOM: Jane Key John M. Duncum COMPANY: DATE: city. of eoue~ staua~, io/obr~s FAX NUMBER TOTAL NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER (409) 764-3496. 2 $ENDIIR'S PHONH NUMBHIL SENDER S FAX NUMBfiR: (409) 823-811.1 F~.-tension 141 (409) 776-3089 RE: Invitation to Neighborhood Meeting ^ URGENT 0 1~UR REVIEW ^ PLEASE!. COMMENT ^ PLEASE REPLY Q FOR YOUR FILE NOTES/COMMENTS: Jane This is a copy of the Ietter sent to the owners of the houses in Southwood within the 2U0 foot area. I have noted that several are non-residents but have sent letters t~ them anyway. We hope someone from the city can be there to observe and participate. Do you think ~.ve should incite someone from P&Z? If so, will you let them lmow. Thanks. 4i04 HIGHWAY 6 SOUTH, BRYAN, TEXAS ?7so2 Sabine McCully -Call Mr Duncam Steeplechase .. .Page 1 From: Jane Kee To: smccully Date: 9/2?/98 4:57PM Subject:. Call Mr. Duncam -Steeplechase Please call him (or have someone call him) before hisWed. just to touch base-on whether he's going to tum in a rezoning request to meet this Wed's deadline. Please let Skip know what he says. Thanks very much. I'll be back Wed. afternoon and will check with you. ~, ~,~~ ~~~ ~~, ~ ~~ PARKLAND Refer to plan in wall This issue was resolved. at the P&Z mtg. with the developer agreeing to dedicate:9 acres (1.8 originally devoted to_duplex-lots and the 7.23 acre that is floodplain and detention area). P&Z recommends taking the entire 9 acres for parkland and to allow it to suffice for the .existing 331 units proposed. as well as any units built in phase 4. The developer is requesting that he City consider oversize participation on the collector roadway that will .run .adjacent to the park. The developer's engineer has submitted estimates asking for $27,786.50 which is the difference in'the residential roadway and a collector one.: P&Z recommends that Council consider this. This idea is one staff has been considering as we look at revisions-needed for our parkland dedication ordinance. For visibility and safety reasons we try to encourage that parks be developed with frontage along streets. Developers are concerned about not being able-to have saleable lots. on both sides of the street. Some communities have an oversize policy for when this occurs. (Plr4N0) ~..~,~..~ ,...~ t.~1G DENSITY.MAP ON-ECHO ~~~' q~fgq ~e'tf Land Use Plan reflects the area for high density single family developmient (7-9). The applicant's intent is for a mix of single family and duplex..: development. Staff has. been comfortable all along with the duplex portion. of the proposal because of the adjacent. existing duplex development to the east. There were no duplexes permitted in CS from the mid-late. 80's until 1992. Since then there was a peak in 1993 of 96 units that year and this has been steadily declining with 20 units built last year. The. Commission originally had some concern about placing the smaller single family lots near the existing larger single family lots in Southwood Valley..... There was no objection stated o this at the last mtg. The of orientation away from the existing houses and. the fact that the density falls within the land use: plan were overriding factors. "0"CVSHT"98-311 cc.doc" At full build out the proposed plan will .generate between 2,500 and 3,50 tri s er da Ultimatel staff estimates that Navarro will carry between 't 1 p p y Y, 2,500 -3,500 vehicles per day (vpd) and WestRidge will carry between 1,000 and 2,000 vpd. These volumes are well within range fora 3~ ` w ic~.~. collector street. (5,000) There were 6 commissioners present and they voted unanimously to recommend approval with the recommendation that the Council consider ~' oversize for part of Westridge and that the parkland dedication cover the future phase 4 of this development and that .Navarro be connected to Wellborn with. Phase: 2. ~ ~~h ~~. i -~ 1 "0"CVSHT"98-311 cc.doc" i Gross density is approx. 5units/.acre. There are 331 dwelling ~ units. proposed. j !, Density increases to 6 /acre if delete acreage designated for storm ~' water management and open space and the reserved commercial acreage. This density is less. than that shown. on the land use plan even though the housing type is not all single family. ~~ The existing lots in the single #amily development to .the south are ~ larger than the ones proposed. in this development. The density is ~, approximately 3 dwelling units per acre ~~ Density of only the singe family lots in Steeplechase is 4.6 units per acre. TRAFFIC -BACK TO SAM The Commission :discussed the traffic issue again and felt comfortable ~- --,, when Ed explained the amount of traffic from this development is more than able to be handled onthe collector street system and that distributing the traffic to` Welsh' and Welborn is the ideal rather than concentrating all traffic onto Welsh. A secondary means. of ingress/egress is preferable. The developer has agreed to make this secondary .access avilable with irhe second phase of the development.. There was. some concern about cut-thru traffic thru existing areas with Navarra connecting to Wellborn. It is unlikely that this will occur to any great extent due to the location of traffic. generators in this area. It will be much faster for those heading northbound to to go the intersection where there is a free right turn. Traffic from. inside this development will disperse to Wellborn: and Welsh and it is not. likely that any would continue on eastbound on .Navarro unless they had a destination in that. neighborhood. Navarro has .stops and narrows :down. to a 28' wide street at Pedernales. May be a small amount of cut.-thru traffic thru this new development to and from. the existng neighborhood to the east but it will be residential traffic which is what the collector is designed for and will not be traffic going to ~%" `,, and from commercial desitations. "O"CVSHT"98-311 cc.doc" Steeplechase Subdivision located along the east side of Wellborn Roa ,south of FM 2818 and adjacent to Southwood Valley Sections 23 and 24D. This is infill development containing 64 acres;~o~i~~ ~p~~ '~~{ ,~~~`~ ~~~,,Q t ~`" ' " Plan - 80 single family lots,. 125.duplex lots, a small reserve tract for future residential development,~~3 3 ~ ~~``\)1 3 acres of commercial development fronting.Wellborn Road, vM ` ~I 7.23 acres of common .space devoted partially to storm water management on the north side of the development and a small area for detention on the east side. The property sits adjacent to a creek area on the north, is bound on the east by an existing duplex development°and on the south by a single family development. ~,,.---~R~~- T- ACTION TO DATE PARKS BOARD - 6-9 P8~Z 6-18 ~-w~ __~___- CC 7-9 T e Parks Board nsidered parkland dedication for this master plan anTdiscussed the options of accepting a monetary dedication (approx.. $75,000) or a land dedication (approx. 2.5 acres). It was recom ended by the Board that the monetary dedication. a taken ~~s #. i~~ wt.~~-~-~ c~ev-- `~ -~ PAZ a~ ts~-sf rw-~ , $` ~Z reco mended denial of the master plan. The P&Z had 4 concern4. density, parkland, traffic, HOA maintenance, Plan went o o Council I week and was sent back to the Commission on a 4-3 vote. ounce man Esmond made the motion stating that he felt uncomfortable ..acting on .this plan with. such a strong .unanimous statement from the P&Z and moved to send it back for reconsideration. The implication was that the developer would try to address some of the issues. _,~~ `~~~ ~~ -' e~~~m Ram ~uP ~o ~d~ ~~~ ~,~ ~ ' 07r21s90 1405 a 409.776.6699 a ~~ McCLURE ENGINEERING, INC. McCLURE ENGR INC P. 81 qg- 3 Ms. Jane Kee City Planner _ _ -- _- _ - Department of Development,Services Cityof Collegc Station- . P',.O. Box 9960: _, , College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Oversize Participation for West Ridge;:Drive in Steeplechase Subdivision Dear Jane: Attached is an estimate of the oversize participation by the City of College Station on West Ridge Drive in the Steeplechase Subdivision. The estimated differential cost between a 28 ft. street and a 39 ft. street is $27,786.50. The unit costs I used to develop this estimate are based on recent bids we received for similar.construction. Since the time of development is unknown, I have included an'aliowance fol• inflation in the unit costs. If you have questions, please contact me`atyour convenience. Thankyou. Sincerely, Kent Lana, P.E.G 1722 t3roadmoor. Suite 21.0 • Bryan, Texas 77802 (409) 776-6700 FAX (409) 776-6699 4 07/21/98. 14:07 $ 409 77'6 6699 MCCLURE ENGR INC P.02 I __ /~ i--l 'L~ cn ~ ~ O •~ .~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , a v •-~ a~ ~ ~--~ .~" U ~ . '~ i ~ •~ a ti ~ ~ ~ v ~ O O .~ O U v"i 0 O O O cV ~ Q~ N N O O V O ri ~ O O mot' rn O oo op ~n v N h t~ i - M cV 00 O O p N cV O O c~ oo ~ o0 ~ V N. -~ M N a ~ ~' 00 N M M O O~ N 0~ ~ M . ~~ (V ~ '~t ~' / V O Orn ~ ~ 0 U -~ N ri ~ O ~ O vi ~ .-. ~ nj to 00 h M - O M N ~ N M M M ~ cd ~' +-' ' '-' O O V1_ _ to O a~ C) ~ Vi' N Vi N cd o •~, ~ cn •c a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ GR V C7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ .~ ~, ~ ~ r . ~ cV th d' N . ---c STAFF REVIEW REPORT January 22,.1998 ~~~ TO: Wellborn Road Limited Hi h a Austin TX 78746 i al of Texas w ~ Two Cielo Center, Ste 300, 1250 Cap t g y, , _._ Michael McClure, P.E. McClure Engineering 1722 Broadmoor, Ste 210, Bryan, TX 77802. ~ -- - -- _ ___ FROM: Development Review Staff: i Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer ` ' Jane Kee, :City Planner Natalie Ruiz, Assistant Development Coor ma r Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Tony. Michalsky, Electrical Operations Coordinator Laverne .Akin, GTE Representative SUBJECT:' Master Development Plan -Willow Run Phase 3; a master plan for 227.35 acres in the City's E:T.J. located east of the existing Willow Run Phase 2. (98-305) The development review staff reviewed the above mentioned Master Development Plan on Tuesday, January 20, 1998 "and made .the following comments. The following is '' a list of ordinance requirements. identified. by staff. This list does:: not .relieve the applicant of total '~ compliance with all current ordinance requirements. ~, Ordinance Requirements: _ Lots 15 and 20 do not meet the minimum 100' lot width dimension at the street. A variance should be requested to this requiremen~~ to be considered by the Planning .and Zoning Commission. Staffs concerned with access to Lots 28 and 39 due to the topography. _ Clarify general note #7 to reference Phase 3A. _ On; the David's Lane cui-de-sac, the right-of-way .needs to be 100' in diameter and the pavement diameter needs to be 80'. (Refer to Section 8G of the .Subdivision Regulations) Show the necessary drainage easements. Comments/Concerns: _ Coordinate telephone service details with GTE Representative- Laverne Akin at (409) 821- 4723. SUBMIT THE MYLAR ORIGINAL AND 13 COPIES. OF THE REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT BY WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1998 TO BE .INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS FOR THE .MEETING ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1998 AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COLTNCII. ROOM, 1101 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH. ~VIVVI..V ~ ,` .__., ...~~. ...._.v. . ..,., .. . April 6, 1998 Ms. Jane Kee - City Planner CITY OF COLLEGE STATION -- - -- P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 __ __ __ RE: EDELWEISS ESTATES, PHASE THIRTEEN LAND USE INTENSITY CALCULATIONS Dear Jane: As you requested, the following information was used for calculating the Minunum C>pen Space Ratio and the Livability Space Ratio for Edelweiss Estates, Phase Thirteen: Open Space Ratio Minimum Allowed: 0.74 X 266,805 (Gross Area) = 4.534 acres Livability Space Ratio Gross Area: 266,805.00 Less Street ROW:. - 37,653.26 Less Floor Area: - 20 3465 .1:59,851.74/266,805 = 0.599 which is greater than the 0.48 nainirnum per the Ordinance Should you have .any questions or need additional information, please advise. Very truly yours, i~~, Mi hael R. McClure, P.E., R.P.L.S. President MRM/rnlrri 1722 Broadmoor, Sui#e 210 Bryan, Texas 77802 (409) 776-6700 FAX {409) 776-6899 •` ~' / TI OLLEGE STA O C P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tet. 409 764 3500 Mr. Mike McClure McClure Engineering 1722 Broadmoor, Suite 210 Bryan, Texas 77802 May 3, 1999 RE; .Parkland Dedication for Shenandoah and Alexandria Dear Mr. McClure: As per our conversation last: week, the City of College Station will allow development ®f Alexandria (1-5) through phase 2 and Shenandoah (6-10) through phase 7 without the,complete parkland dedication. Inorder to continue development beyond these phases, the developer must complete the parkland dedication that was approved as part of the master plan process. To date, $,069 -acres of the approximate 12 acre park has been dedicated to the City of College Station. The remaining acreage must be dedicated'before the City of College Station will file plats for Alexandria phases 3,4, or S or Shenandoah phases $,9, or 10. I hope this helps you to have the time necessary to sufficiently locate the dedication area. If you have any additional concerns please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ~~Q~~ l: ~~~C~~~l"Z~ `i,L~ Jane 1Z Kee, AICP City Planner Home of Texas A&M University Jane Kee W Mike McClure, Chris i=rysingei and Kay Henrison ~~, Page„,~ :~ From: Jane Kee Date: 9/22/99 Time: 2:OOPM - 4:OOPM Subject: W/ Mike McClure, Chris Frysinger and Kay Henrison Place: Training Rm. Discuss the Wolf Pen Plaza dev't at Holleman & Texas and how it relates to the George Bush East bridge, the proposed work in WPC and the materials used in both projects. . ~„ - _ -Jane Kee -DRB - Des gn & materials o the George Bush Dr E. Brdge ~ Page 1~'~ From: Amber Kelly To: Jane Kee; Natalie Ruiz; Steve Beachy; Training Room Date: 8/25/99 Time: 10:OOAM - 11:OOAM Subject: DRB -Design & materials of the George Bush Dr. E. Bridge. Place: Training Rm. W/Mike McClure Cust. confirmed CC: Bridgette George Jane Kee -Mike McClure's plan From: Jane Kee Date: 2/10/99 Time: 8:OOAM - 9:OOAM Subject: Mike McClure's plan ~. _ ,. ~ ,,:.. ,.,F .,: Page 1 Mane Kee Mike McClure -Cardinal dead-end From: Jane Kee Date: 1 /19/99 Timer 2:OOPM - 3:OOPM Subject: Mike McClure -Cardinal dead-end -~;. ~ .. Page 'o ~,,, ~, ,:, Jane Kee -Predevelopment -property on Wellborn -- _ g From: Debra Charanza To: Edwin Hard, Jane Kee, Paul Kaspar, Shirley Volk, Tony Michalsky, TRAINING ROOM - DEV SERVICES Date: 5/4/98 Time: 3:OOPM - 4:30PM Subject: Predevelopment -property on Wellborn Place: Dev Svcs Conf Room meeting with Mike McClure to discuss 67 acres on Wellborn at end of West Ridge, Navarro, etc (between Koppe Bridge and Deacon) Jane Kee -Thoroughfare Plan -Victoria Extension ~ ~ il ~g -~; _` From: Debra Charanza To: Edwin Hard, Jane Kee, Jim Callaway, TRAINING ROOM Date: 3/23/98 Time: 2:OOPM - 4:OOPM Subject: Thoroughfare Plan -Victoria Extension Placer Training Room requested by Ed ** Please reserve this time slot, I have not notified the following people yet because I am waiting for Gary Seabacl< to call Ed back. I this changes I will let t'a'll know. Thanks. meeting with: John Szabuniewicz, Mike McClure, Earnest Rivers, and Gary Seaback Debra Charanza Staff Assistant, ext. 3783 one Kee - Predeve{opment -Shenandoah Phases 6-9 Page ? From: Jane Kee Date: 2/23/98 Time: 3:30PM - 4:30PM Subject: Predevelopment -.Shenandoah Phases 6-9 Mike McClure will be here at 3:30 so t'a'll can meet with staff only until then. Debra Charanza Staff Assistant, ext. 3783 -'Jane Kee -Predevelopment -Pebble Greek new phase ~ ~ __ A _..A, _., ~ ~~ A.... ~~' Page From: Debra Charanza To: Jane Kee, Shirley Volk, Training Room -Dev Services, Veronica Morgan Date: 2/3/98 Time: 3:OOPM - 4:OOPM Subject: Predevelopment -Pebble Creek newphase Place: Training Room -Dev Services meeting with Mike McClure - to discuss what he has to do. Debra Charanza Staff Assistant, ext. 3783 CC: Natalie Ruiz Jane Kee - i -fare/McClure _ ~ m ., Page 1 ~d From: Edwin Hard To: JKEE, EHARD Dater 1/9/98 Time: 10:30AM - 11:30AM Subject:. T-fare/McClure Placer Ed's office or OCR Mike has taken our MooCow Drawing and made some changes he wants to run by us. I think he's working on the River's tract and the tract on the other side of Barron south of the River's and west of Shenaindoah. V, your attendance is optional. Thought you might be interested since the drawing was in your honor. CC: VMORGAN Jane Kee -Mike McClure Phase 8 V1loodcreek From: Jane Kee To: vmorgan,jkee,pkaspar Date: 10/17/97 Time: 8:30AM - 9:30AM Subject: Mike McClure Phase 8 Woodcreek Place: OCR gage DENSITY Land Use Plan reflects the area for high density single family development (7-9). The applicant's intent is fora. mix of single family and duplex development. Staff is comfortable with the duplex portion of the prpposal because. of the. adjacent existing duplex development to the east. A rezoning request will .have to be considered and any approval of this plan conditioned. upon receiving zoning approval. The property is currently zoned A-O Agricultuiral Open. ,_._._._.~.^._.....~~` DENSITY MAP ON ELMO ~~ The Commission placing a smaller single family lots near the existing larger single family lots in Southwood Valley. Gross density is approx. 5 units J acre. There are 331 dwelling units proposed. Density increases to 6 /acre if delete acreage designated for storm water .management and open: space and the reserved commercial acreage. This density is less than that shown on the land use plan even though the housing type is not all single family. The existing lots in the single family development to the south are larger than the ones proposed in this development. The density is approximately 3 dwelling units per acre Density of only the single family lots. in Steeplechase is 4.6 units per acre. , U ~.~ ~s~ . ARK .MAP ON ELM Parkland -The Commission felt that the two existing neighborhood parks in this zone are-too far from this existing development to be useable and v~+ere not comfortable with using the 40' drainage/ utility easemnt for access. There is a 40 foot wide drainage and utility right-of-way that separates the larger existing lots in Southwood Valley 24D from these proposed lots ire Steeplechase. ~, The Commission felt that a land dedication rather then the cash in lieu of land was more appropriate. The Subdivision Regulations require a vote of 5 Commissioners to overturn a Parks Boardrecommendation. P&Z had only 4 :members voting on this item. So it went on to Council with the Parks Baord rec. to take the cash. Council did not give specific direction relative to this issue. After the CC mtg the staff and developer and engineer discussed various .options. At that point .the developer felt comfortable with giving up 5 .lots (approx. 1 acre) and dedicating this along with the 7.2 acres of floodplain and detention area for parkland. The plan was for Steve Beachy and t to meet with the P&Z chairman, the Parks. Board. Chairman and the one remaining parks board member and get feedback. This meeting took place last .Hite and the consensus of the 3 .members of those 2 advisory bodies was that the ordinance calls for a dedication of 2.5 acres and the ordinance also. states that .generally this land should be out of he floodplain. They did notfeel comfortable accepting more than half of `~ the land dedication as floodplain. The. direction was to talk to the developer about dedicating all 9 lots for parkland and the City would take over the maintenance of the detention facility .and floodplain This land ~ dedication would be .about 1.8 acres. ~,~Ql--~,I,,~-- c+-,~ ~ 0~ . Steve and 1 spoke with. the developer today and. he is not ameneable to dedicating any more land than that which is presently out of the floodplain. He did ask whether a dedication that included some filled floodplain would be acceptable but. Steve and I responded at this point that an idea like this should go thru the Parks Board. The Board does have a mtg. next Tuesday. This would put Council action off until August 13th. TRAFFIC The Commission was concerned about the amount of traffic generated from this development.. They felt that secondary access to Wellborn should be considered before. the 3rd phase of the development. .I've spoken with the developer since then who is willing to extend access to Wellborn with the .second phase. ,~ Utz{ a# Cao~,~.ui ~ ~~ Concern has also been mentioned possible cut-thru traffic using Navarro. Thoroughfare plan shows no major roadways needing to be extended through this property.. West Ridge Dr. and Navarro. Dr. will be extended into the property to provide circulation and connection between subdivisions as well as provide access,to Wellborn Rd. and to Welsh for good traffic distribution. ED _ ~ At full build out the proposed plan will. generate between. 2,500 and 3,500 trips per day. These. two minor collector streets, Navarro and WestRidge, will adequately handle this traffic. Traffic generated will be well distributed to Welsh via Navarro and WestRidge and o Wellborn Road via Navarro. Ultimately, staff estimates that Navarro will carry between 2,500 -3,500 vehicles per day. (vpd) and. WestRidge will carry between 1,000 and 2,00 .vpd. These volumes are well. within range fora minor collector street. NOTE Part of Navarro as it nears Wellborn is shown to be constructed 1/2 on this property and 1/2 on the adjacent tract. At the time of construction this entire. right-of--way must be dedicated. Steeplechase Subdivision 4 Table of Contents I. I-Iistory in Planning and Zoning II. Neighborhood Concerns III. Background of Current Request IV. Support for Non Diminution of Adjacent Values V. Current Zoning Request Page 2 4 5 8 1l I. History in Planning. and Zoning April 1998. Contracted for land and immediately began dialogue with City of College Station staff on_appropriate planning for the site. It should be-noted .that the plan for use of the site and the drawings submitted to the staff, Parks Board, Planning and Zoning, and City Council have always been within the standard zoning ordinances for residential development in the City of College Station and have been. for less density than that shown in the comprehensive plan for the specific site on which the request is made. No request for any variance from he City ordinances or the comprehensive plan of the city has been requested. dune 9, 1998 Presented the master plan with the proposed park land dedication to the Parks Board. Parks Board recommended a monetary dedication to be taken in lieu of a land dedication. June 18, 1998 Presented the site plan with the proposed lot layouts and proposed park land contribution to P&Z. ' P&Z did not agree with the park land contribution and recommended denial to City Council. July 9, 1998 City Council preferred. additional .park land to encompass the flood retention ponds and referred the plan back to P&Z to work out the details. July 16, 1998 Presented he site plan with the proposed lot layouts and an amended park land dedication to P&Z. P&Z asked for additional park land which. required the. elimination of nine duplex lots in the project {this equated to a developer contribution of over $1000 per subdivision lot vs. the standard required developer park contribution of $275 per lot). That contribution. of a total of 9.09 acres was made. The plan was recommended by P&Z to City Council. July 23, 1998 The. plan and P&Z recommendation was presented to City Council and received. approval. It should be noted that in all .cases the lots as proposed were shown on the plat and. the density of f:he development was discussed by P&Z and City Council. City Council discussed the possibility of a different zoning from that which was shown on the plat andone bf the Council stated that it would be inconsistent to deny that later since their approval was of a plat that met the city plan and had been shown on the approved plat all along. August 20, 1998 The plan was submitted July 29~` to P&Z for approval of zoning at the August 20~ meeting. The meeting was a public hearing and a few people from the neighborhood attended. There were no objections to the. plan made by anyone attending. There were concerns expressed about: the project causing flooding. The flooding questions were addressed and the engineering requirements were explained. Two persons asked. questions about any connection the proposed subdivision would have into the adjacent subdivision and other general questions about the proposed subdivision. These questions. were answered and no objections to the R-l zoning or other concerns'were expressed. P&Z unanimously recommended to City Council the zoning for R-1 and R-2 plus the commercial designations for the land nearest Wellborn Road. September 10, 1998 The .recommended. zoning plan was. presented to City. Council. A number of people appeared at the Council meeting to object to tlhe plan, many of which'were concerned with the flooding issue. Tvvo owners within the 200 foot area spoke against the project saying that the project would cause a reduction of values to their homes. They stated they had obtained petitions on the matter. We did not see the petitions at that time. Council approved the commercial zoning and R-2 but sent the R-1 zoning back to P&Z fore. further study. October 15, 1998 This .presentation to P&Z follows our efforts to work with persons in the neighboring subdivision. II. Neighborhood. Concerns It is our understanding. that residents of the neighboring subdivision have petitioned that houses under $125,000 in value not be developed along the adjoining perimeter of their subdivision. They believe that the proposed subdivision will cause a reduction of value of their properties. It was stated to us outside the public meeting that the kind of persons that might purchase homes in the area would be the caliber of neighbors that would detract from the area. We do not agree with that. beliefbut have none-the-less attempted to address that with the affected parties. That. is discussed in a later section of this presentation. We believe at this point. it should also be noted that the residents of the adjoining .neighborhoods purchased their homes knowing that the subject adjacent land was undeveloped and should have appropriately assumed that this undeveloped land would, some day, be developed. They could have also been aware of the comprehensive plan of the Citythat was for a high density single family development of this site. The proposal for development meets the requirements for the most favorable and restrictive zoning of the City - R-1 Single Family Residential. The density planned is substantially less than the comprehensive piano However, it is recognized that some of the owners of property in the adjacent subdivision do have a concern .and the devel®pers have beery willing to do what is feasible to alleviate that concern. n III. Background. of Current Request Following the Septemberl0~` meeting. of City Council when the R-1 zoning was denied and the plan returned to P&Z, two of the persons who spoke against the plan approached us and volunteered to meet with us. A meeting was arranged with. Mr. Vargo and Mrs.. McDonald within a couple of weeks and was held in the home of Mrs. McDonald. Mr: Huff and Mr. Duncum attended the ...meeting. We asked Mr. Vargo. and Mrs. McDonald what whey would like us to do that would make them more comfortable. with he development of single familyhomes on this site. Mr. .Vargo stated several times that we should guarantee that homes would not sell for less than.$130,000. He stated that he was concerned about the kind of people that would buy the smaller homes that would be allowed in the development. We explained the following: • There would. be no street or sidewalk connection between the two subdivisions. • There is a very wide easement between the rear of the existing subdivision homes and: the rear property line of the proposed subdivision. • There is a drainage ditch in the easement to further limit access across the easement:. We ®ffered the following: • An eight foot fence would be constructed along the rear property line of the houses backing up to the drainage easement OI' • The lot sizes along the drainage easement would be increased to 65 feet in width and the minimum house size would be 1,400 sq. ft. It was also offered that the deed restrictions to be used on the proposed subdivision wc-uld require the same type of construction and neighborhood maintenance as the existing, adjacent subdivisions. Mr. Vargo and Mrs. McDonald said they could not commit to the plans without discussing he matter with the neighbors they represented.' We asked that they get back in touch with us as soon as possible so we could continue o prepare for the next P&Z meeting. We heard nothing from them afterward. c Quite some time after this meeting I visited with one of the residents of the neighborhood and asked if the proposals had been made to them. The offer to build the fence was news to him and he suggested that the fence would probably satisfy them. In the meanwhile we heard from other neighbors in the area that another petition was being circulated and opposition to the. development. was being expressed by Mr. Vargo, We were also informed by two real estate appraisers that they had been approached by Mr. Vargo to testify hat the proposed subdivisionwould cause a reduction of the value of their homes. Both declined stating that it was not their opinion that this would happen. Since the o#I'ers we had made apparently had not been communicated to the neighbors at that time, we decided we should invite the neighbors in the existing subdivision to a meeting where we could discuss with them their concerns about the proposed development and directly make our offer to them. The attached letter was sent to each owner in the. single family residential neighborhoods within 200 feet of the property. The meeting was held on Monday night at the A&M Church of Christ as scheduled and. one' homeowner attended. (A resident did inform us that they were encouraged not to attend our meeting- since "all issues;had already been discussed.") We discussed with the attending homeowner the plans offered and they were specifically interested in the fence prop©alall. We suggested the fence. could either have eight foot columns with a six foot wood section between that would give the columns a decorative cap or the eight foot version that would have the column caps incorporated into the same level as the wood section: They preferred the eight foot version. We agreed that the fence should be incorporated into the zoning approval to be maintained by the homeowners :association but enforceable by the City. BRAZOS TRIAD LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHLP, LTD. STE-EPLECHASE SUBDIVISION October 15, 1998. CARL EDWARD & BARBARA VARGO 2902 CORTEZ CT COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845 Dear Owner:. You have recently been notified by the City of College Station of the reconsideration of a' rezoning request for the Steeplechase :Subdivision: Steeplechase. is approximately 28 acres, located north of the Southwood Valley Sections 23 and 24D. The zoning request is for R-1 which is single .family .residential.. We are informed that. your :property lies within 200 feet of the south line of this proposed subdivision. Our partnership would appreciate the. opportunity to meet with. you prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that is scheduled for Thursday, October 1 ~. We have arranged for a meeting place at the A&M church of Christ on October i 2 at 7:00 :PM (Monday): The church building is located at 1001 FM 2818 in College Station (afros Nueces Drive from: the high school). The purpose of our meeting with those of °you receiving'this letter is o explain the .plan of this development and to address any concerns you, may have about the development; We will appreciate your attendance and the opportunity to discuss this project with you. Sincerely, John M. TJuncum President, Brazos Triad Corporation General Partner PO BOX 10233 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842 PHONE: (409) 774-6101 FAX: (409) 690-7036 IV. Support for Non Diminution of Adjacent Values In light of the concerns expressed by adjacent. owners that the proposed development would devalue their properties, we made inquiry of three appraisers asking for their opinion of this situation. Two of the appraisers have prepared letters of opinion about this issue. The third expressed the. same opinion as the two who have written the letters but .due to a potential conflict of interest could not give his written opinion. The first opinion is expressed by James Dunn, MAI, of the Don Holtkamp appraisal fine. This firm is a long time provider of appraisals in the Bryan/College Station area and is respected and approved by .lenders in this market. The designation "MAP' is the highest awarded by The Appraisal Institute to its members who have met the very rigid educational, experience, and examination requirements of that professional organization, The MAI designation in the appraisal profession corresponds to the CPA designation in the accounting profession. The second opinion is expressed $y Martin G. Cangelose, RAA, State Certified Appraiser. Mr: Cangelose is a ,real. estate broker, consultant, and appraiser of long standing in this areae His work is respected and approved by lenders for residential and commercial properties. We believe this adequately supports our contention that the proposed subdivision .does not adversely affect the adjacent property ownerse KENNEDY HOLTKAMP, INC. Real Estate Appraisers Bryan • Fort Worth • Tyler October 14, 1998 City'of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station,: Texas 77840 To Whom It May Concern: At the request of IVir. John Duncum of Brazos Triad Land Development Partnership Ltd., we have been asked to comment on any possible diminution in value to the existing single family..subdivisions tothe immediate south-southeast ofthe proposed Steeplechase Subdivision. This proposed subdivision will contain approximately 1 lb duplex lots, and is proposed to have several tracts. developedwith single family residences on lots which are smaller than is the norm for the area. Based on my working knowledge of the development, it is my opinion that the surrounding single family residential development will not experience: a decrease in property value brought about by the `development of Steeplechase Subdivision. The following points are the basis for this opinion. • The duplex portion of the subdivision adjoins existing. duplex development and will be newer, larger and more upscale than most of the existing duplexes. • The. proposed single family .portion of Steep echase is separated from the duplex portion by the proposed extension of Navarro Drive. This street will serve to feed traffic out of the subdivision onto either Welsh Avenue or Wellborn Road and will serve as a natural neighborhood boundary between the duplex and single family portions of the development. • 1VIr. Duncum has noted that there wh be several barriers between the proposed single family development of Steeplechase Subdivision and the existing single family development to the south-southeast.. There will include an eight foot high proximity fence along th.e entire border of the development. Additionally, a considerable portion of the border is already encumbered by a forty foot drainage easement and utility right of way. Page 2 • There will be no common streets shared by the adjoining developmentsa Therefore, to travel from one neighborhood to the other, traffic will have to go out Navarro Drive to either Wellborn Road or Welsh Avenue and hen proceed by traditional means to get to the existing single family neighborhoods. As noted above, there will be considerableseparation between the developments, even though they are physically adjoining properties. This separation will serve to create multiple distinct neighborhoods within .the area, and will also serve to create different real estate submarkets. Therefore, it is my opinion that the adjoining neighborhoods will not witness any decrease in property .values brought about by the possible smaller home sizes/lesser values associated with the proposed development, Please feel free to contact me if ][ can be of further service in this.matter. Respectfully submitted, f `;- ~~ ~ .~~~~/ ux~es B. Dunn, MAI SCGREA TX-1324788-G October 15, 1998 City of College Station Planning and Zoning City Council 110 i Texas Avenue College. Station, Texas 77840 RE: Proposed Bevel©pment of Steeplechase Subdivision To Whom It May Concern, I have been approached by Mr. Raymond Huff of Brazos Triad Land Development Partnership to analyze the influence ofthe above referenced proposed development on the properties located along the south boundary of proposed Steeplechase Subdivision. The,concerns of the property owners located on these streets. sthat this proposed development will create a decrease in value on their properties. Steeplechase Subdivision will consist of a combination of single family residential and duplex lots.. The single family residential will be restricted to homes between $80,000-$110,000, while the homes :along the south boundary range in value from $125,000-$175,000. The duplexes will be upper-end 3 bedroom, 2 bath units. I have. l4 years experience of appraising residential. property in the Bryan-College Sta1'~ion area and based on my experience and knowledge of the area it is my opinion that Steeplechase Subdivision will not have an adverse affect on the property values .along the south boundary. Justification for this opinion is as follows: • Ingress & egress for Steeplechase will be by way of an extension of Navarro: Drive between Wellborn Road and Welsh Avenue. Homes along the south boundary will not be accessible from Steeplechase, therefore forming a separate neighborhood entity. • There will bean 8' fence along the perimeter of Steeplechase coupled with an already existing 40' drainage and utility right of way between the south boundary and the proposed development. • Separate neighborhood entities already exist within the subject neighborhood with no proof of decreasing values. Justification for this opinion is as follows: Case # 1: Southwood Forest which is bound by Rio Grande Drive on the northeast, Rock Prairie Road on the southeast, Westchester Avenue ogthe southwest and Deacon Drive onthe northwest consists of homes ranging in value from .$350,000-$900,000+. A brick fence separates Southwood Forest from homes of lesser value within the neighborhood. Across Rio Grande Drive along Larkspur, Buttercup, Paintbrush, and Winecup streets consists of homes inthe $60,000's & $70,000's. Across Deacon Drive are homes along several streets that range from $90,000-$130,000. 2400 BROADMOOR DR. ~ BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 FAX: (409) 774.0735 ®PHONE: (409) 774-0044 ~ INTERNET: WWW.MGCANGELOSE.COM Case #2: Edelweiss Estates, Phase 6-A consists of houses in the $90,000's on Chantal Circle. Adjacent. and northwest of Phase 6-A is Edelweiss Estates Phase 8 consisting of homes from $120,000-$ T45,000. Again, no adverse affect on property values. Due to the .fact that Steeplechase will be separated by distinctive boundaries with. ingress and egress by way of Navarro Drive coupled with case analyses of Southwood Forest and Edelweiss Estates, it is my opinion that homes "adjacent to proposed. Steeplechase Subdivision will not be adversely affected with a decrease in value. If I can be of any further assistance, please. feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ~ . 0+"~M~ Martin G. State Certi TX-13221 ;elose, RAA Residential V. Current Zoning Request We request zoning of theproperty presented tonight as R-1 with the addition of the inclusion of a requirement for fencing on an`easement along the property lines adjacent to the'40' .drainage.. easement on the south side of the. development. We .request the zoning; recommendation to require. us to construct an eight foot wood fence with brick columns at each property line in the proposed development: The fence will be constructed on a continuous reinforced concrete beam with appropriately designed foundation and supported between the brick columns with pipe columns. The wood fencing will have a continuous, decorative wood cap at the top: The brick columns will be eight feet in: height. The "good side" of the fence will be turned to the adjacent, existing subdivision. The maintenance of the subject fence will be included as a responsibility of the homeowners' association of the proposed single family subdivision and the owners. of properties whereon the fence. is constructed: Deed restrictions will require owners. of properties whereon the fence is constructed to not attach other fencing to this fence. At some points along the fence easement there is a difference in elevation between the proposed. project. and the existing subdivision of three feet. This .means the eight foot fence will have the affect of being eleven feet in height where that elevation difference exists. 4 Steeplechase Subdivision t Table. of Contents L History in Planning and Zoning II. Neighborhood Concerns III. Background of Current Request IV. Support for Non Diminution of Adjacent Values ~L Current Zoning Request Page 2 4 5 S 11 I. ..History in Planning and Zoning April 1998 Contracted for land and immediately began dialogue with City o1P College Station staff on appropriate planning for the site. It should be noted that the plan for use. of the site and the. drawings. submitted to the staff, Parks Board, Planning and Zoning, and City Council have- always been within the standard zoning ordinances for residential development in tlhe City of College Station and have been for less density than thhat shown in hecomprehensiveplan for the specific site on which the request is made. No request for any variance from the City ordinances or the' comprehensive plan of the city has been. requested. June 9, 1998 Presented the. master plan with the proposed park land dedication to the Parks Board. Parks Board recommended. a monetary dedication to be taken in lieu of a land dedication. June 18, 1998 Presented the site plan with .the proposed lot layouts and proposed park land contribution to P&Z. P&Z did nat agree with the park .land contribution and recommended denial to City Council. July 9, 1998 City Council preferred additional park land. to encompass thee. flood retention ponds and referred. the plan back to P&Z to work. out the details. July lb, 1998 Presented the site plan with the proposed lot layouts and an amended park land dedication to P&Z. P&Z asked for additional parkland which required the elimination of nine duplex lots in the project (this equated to a developer contribution of over $1000 per subdivision lot-vs. the standard required developer park contribution of $275 per lot}. That contribution of a total of 9.09 acres was made. The plan was recommended by P&Z to City Council. July 23, 1998 The plan and P&Z recommendation. was presented to City Council and received approval.. It should be noted that in all cases the .lots as proposed were shown on the plat and the. density of the development was discussed by P&Z and City Council! City Council. discussed the possibility of a different zoning from that which wasshown on the plat and one of the Council stated that it would be inconsistent to deny that later since their approval was of a plat that menthe city plan and had been shown on the approved plat all along. Elugust 20, 1998 The plan was submitted July 29"' to P&Z for approval of zoning at the August 20r'` meeting. The meeting was a public hearing and a few people. from the neighborhood attended. There were no objections to the plan made by anyone attending. There were concerns. expressed about the project causing flooding. The flooding questions were- addressed and the engineering requirements were explained. Twopersons asked questions about any connection the proposed subdivision would have into the adjacent subdivision and other general questions about the proposed subdivision.. These questions were answered andno objections to the R-1 zoning or other concerns. were expressed. P&Z unanimously recommended to City Council the zoning for R-1 and R-2 plus the commercial designations for the land nearest Wellborn Road. September 1D, 1998 The recommended zoning plan was presented to City Council. ~ number of people appeared at the Council meeting to object to the plan, many of which were concerned with the flooding issue..' Tvvo owners within the 200 foot area spoke against the project saying that the project would cause a reduction of values to their home;>. They stated they had obtained petitions on the matter.. We did not see the petitions at that time. Council ,approved the commercial zoning and R-2 but sent the R-1 zoning back to P~iZ for further study. October 15, 1998 This presentation to P&Z follows. our efforts to work with persons in the neighboring subdivision. IT. Neighborhood Concerns It is our understanding that residents of the neighboring subdivision have petitioned that houses under $125,000 in value not. be developed along the adjoining perimeter of their subdivision. They believe that the proposed subdivision will cause a reduction of value of their properties. It was stated to us outside the public meeting that the kind. of persons .that might purchase homes in the. area would be the caliber of neighbors that would detract from the area. We do not agree with that belief but have none-the-less attempted to address that with the affected parties. That is discussed in a -later section of this presentation. We believe at this point it should also be notedthat the residents of the adjoining neighborhoods purchased their homes knowing that the subject adjacent land was undeveloped and should have: appropriately assumed that this undeveloped land would, some day, be developed. They could have also been aware of the comprehensive plan of the City Ghat was for a high density single family development. of this site. The proposal for development meets the requirements for the most favorable and restrictive zoning c-f the :City - R-1 Single.Family Residential. The density planned is substantially less than the comprehensive plan. However, it is recognized that some of the owners of property in the adjacent subdivision do have a concern and the developers have been willing to do what is feasible to alleviate that concern. III. Background of Current Request Following the September 10`~ meeting of City Council when the R®1 zoning was denied and the plan returned to P&Z, two of the persons who spoke against the plan approached us and volunteered to meet with us. A meeting was arranged with Mr. Vargo and Mrs. McDonald within a couple of weeks and was held in the home of Mrs. McDonald. Mr. Huff and Mr. Duncurn attended the meeting. We asked Mr. Vargo and Mrs. McDonald what they would like us to do that would make them mare comfortable with the development of single family homes on this site. Mr. Vargo stated several times that we should guarantee that homes would not sell for less than $130,000. He stated that he was concerned about the kind of people that would buy the smaller homes that would be allowed in the development. We explained the following: • There would be no street or sidewalk connection between the two subdivisions. • There is a very wide easement between the rear of the existing subdivision -homes and the. rear property line. of the proposed subdivision. • There is a drainage ditch in the easement to further limit access across the easement. We offered the following: • An eight foot fence would be constructed along the rear property line of the houses backing up to the drainage easement or • The. lot sizes along .the drainage easement would.. be increased to 65 feet in width and the minimum house size would be 1,400 sq. ft. It was also offered that the deed restrictions to be used on the proposed. subdivision would require the. same type of construction and neighborhood maintenance as the existing,. adjacent subdivisions.. Mr. Vargo and Mrs. McDonald said they could not commit to the plans without discussing the matter with the neighbors they represented. We asked that they get bacl: in touch with us as soon as possible so we .could.. continue to prepare for the next. P&Z meeting. We heard nothing from them afterward. c .Quite some time after this. meeting I visited .with one of the residents of the neighborhood and asked if the proposals had been made to them. The offer to build the fence was news to him and he suggested that the fence. would probably satisfy them. In the meanwhile we'heard from other neighbors in the area that another petition was being circulated and opposition to the development was being expressed by Mr. Vargo,. We were also informed by two. real estate appraisers that they had been approached by Mr. "Vargo to testify that the proposed subdivision :would cause a reduction of the value of their homes. Both declined stating that it was not their opinion that this would. happen. Since the, offers we had made apparently had not been communicated to the neighbors at that time, we decided we should invite the neighbors in the existing subdivision to a meeting where we could discuss with,them their concerns about the proposed development and directly make our offer to them. The attached letter was sent'to each owner in the single family residential neighborhoods within 200 feet of the property. The. meeting was held on Monday night at the A&M Church of Christ as scheduled and one homeowner attended. (A resident did inform us that they were encouraged not to attend our meeting since"all issues had already been discussed.") We discussed with the attending' homeowner the plans offered and. they were. specifically. interested in thee. fence proposal.. We suggested the fence could either have eight foot columns with a six foot wood section between,that would give the columns a decorative cap or the eight foot version that would have the column,caps incorporated into the same level as the wood section. They preferred' the eight foot version. We agreed that the fence should' be incorporated into. the zoning approval to be maintained by the homeowners association but enf®rceable by the City. BRAZOS TRIAD LAND DEVELOPMENT PARTNE"RSHIP, LTD. STEEPLECHASE SUBDIVISION. October 15, 1.998 CARL EDWARD.& BARBARA VARGO 2902 CORTEZ CT COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845 Dear Owner: You have recently been notified by the City. of College Station of the reconsideration of a rezoning request for the Steeplechase Subdivision. Steeplechase is approximately 28 acres, located north of the Southwood Valley Sections 23 and 24D. The zoning reque;>t is for R-1 which. is single family residential. We are informed. that your property lies within 200 feet of the sauth line of this proposed subdivision. Our partnership would appreciate the .opportunity to meet. with you prior to the Planning and Zoning. Commission meeting that is scheduled for Thursday, October l ~. Vtte have arranged for a meeting place at the A&M church of Christ on October 12 at 7:00 RM (Monday).. The church building is located at 1001 FM 281.8. in College Station (a~~-oss Nueces Drive from the high school), The purpose of our meeting .with those of you, receiving this letter is to explain the plan of this development and to address any concerns you .may have about the development. We will appreciate .your attendance and the opportunity to' discuss this project juith you. Sincerely, John M. Duncum President, Brazos Triad Corporation General Partner PO BOX 10233 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842 PHONE: (409) 774-6101 FAX: (409) 690-7036 IV. Support for Nod Diminution of Adjacent Values In light of the concerns expressed by adjacent owners. that the proposed development would devalue their properties, we made inquiry of three appraisers asking for their. opinion of-this situation. Two of the appraisers have prepared letters of opinion about this issue. The third expressed the same opinion as the two who have written the letters bu.t due to a potential conflict of interest could not give his written opinion. The first opinion is expressed by James Dunn,. MAI, of the Don Holtkamp appraisal firms This firm is a long time provider of appraisals: in .the Bryan/College Station area and is respected and approved by lenders in this marl~et. The designation "MAI" is the highest .awarded by The Appraisal Institute to its members who have met the very rigid educational, experience, and examination requirements of that professional organization. The: MAI designation in the appraisal profession corresponds to the CPA designation in the accounting profession. The second opinion is expressed by Martin G: Cangelose, RAA, State Certified Appraiser, Mr. Cangelose is a real estate broker, consultant, and appraiser of long standing in this area. His work is respected and approved by lendersfor residential andcommercial properties. We believe this adequately supports our contention that the proposed subdivision does not adversely affect the adjacent property owners: Q KENNEDY HOLTKAMP, INC. Real Estate Appraisers Bryan • Fort Worth • Tyler October 14, 1998 City of College .Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, .Texas. 77840 To Whom It May Concern: At the request of IVIr. John Duncum of Brazos Triad Land Development Partnership Ltd., vve have been asked to comment on any possible diminution in value to the existing single family subdivisions to'the immediate south-southeast of the proposed Steeplechase Subdivision. This proposed subdivision will c®ntain approximately 116 duplex lots, and is proposed to have several tracts. developed with single family residences on lots. which aze smaller than is the norm for the area. Based on my working knowledge of the development, it is my opinion. that the surrounding 'single family. residential development will .not experience a decrease inproperty value brought about by the development of Steeplechase Subdivision. The following points are the basis for this opinion. • The duplex portion of the subdivision adjoins existing duplex development and will be newer, larger and more upscale than most of the existing duplexes. • The, proposed. single .family portion of Steeplechase is separated from the duplex porrion by the proposed extension of Navarro. Drive. This street will serve to feed traffic out of the subdivision onto either Welsh Avenue. or Wellborn Road and will serve as a natural neighborhood boundary between the duplex and single family portions of the development. • 1Vir. Duncum has noted that there will be several bamers between the proposed single family development of Steeplechase Subdivision and the existing single family development to the south-southeast.. There will include an :eight foot high'proximity fence along the entire border of the development. Additionally, a considerable portion of the border is already encumbered by a forty foot drainage easement and utility right of way. Page 2 • There will be no common streets shared by the adjoining developments. Therefore, to travel from one neighborhood o the other, traffic will have to go out Navarro E)rive to either Wellborn Road or Welsh Avenue and then proceed by traditionalmeans to ge;t to the existing single family neighborhoods. As noted above, there will be considerable separation between the developments, even though they are physically adjoining properties. This separation will serve to create multiple distinct neighborhoods within the area, .and will also serve to create different real. estate submarkets. Therefore, it is my opinion .that the adjoining neighborhoods will not witness any decrease in property. values brought_about by the possible smaller home sizes/lesser values associated with the proposed development. Please feel free to contact me if l[ can be of further service in this matter. Respectfully submitted, l C ~2 ., ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ James B. Dunn, MAI SCGREA TX-132478-G October 15, 1998. City of College Station Planning and Zoning City Council 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77840. RE: Proposed development of Steeplechase Subdivision To Whom It May Concern, I have been approached by Mr. Raymond Huff of Brazos Triad Land Development Partnership to analyze the influence of the above referenced proposed development on the properties located along the south boundary of proposed Steeplechase Subdivision. The concerns of the property owners located on these streets is that this proposed development will create a decrease in value on their properties. Steeplechase. Subdivision will consist of a combination of single family residential and duplex lots. The single family residential will be restricted. to homes between $80,000-$1.10,000, while the homes along the south boundary range in value from $125,000-$175,000. The duplexes will be upper-end 3"bedroom, 2 bath units. I have 14 years experience of appraising residential property in the Bryan-College. Station area and based on my experience and knowledge of the area it is my opinion that Steeplechase- Subdivision will not have an adverse affecYon the property values along the south boundary. Justification for this opinion is as follows: • Ingress & egress for Steeplechase will be by way of an extension of Navarro Drive between Wellborn Road and Welsh Avenue. Homes along the south boundary will not be accessible from Steeplechase, therefore forming a separate neighborhood entity. • There will be an 8' fence along theperimeter of Steeplechasecoupledwith an already existing 40' drainage and utility right of way between the south boundary and the proposed development. • Separate neighborhood entities already exist within the subject neighborhood with no proof of decreasing values. Justification for this opinion is as follows: Case # 1: Southwood Forest which is bound by Rio Grande Drive on the northeast, Rock Prairie Road on the southeast, Westchester Avenue on the southwest and Deacon Drive on he northwest consists of homes ranging in value from $350,000-$900,000+. A brick fence separates Southwood. Forest from homes of lesser value within the neighborhood. Across Rio Grande Drive along Larkspur, Buttercup, Paintbrush, and Winecup streets consists of homes in the $60,000's & $70000's. Across Deacon Drive are homes along several streets that range from $90,000-.$130,000. 2400. BROADMOOR DR. ~ BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 FAX: (409) 774-0735 ~ PHONE: (409) 774-0644 ~ INTERNET: WWW.MGCANGEILOSE.COM Case #2: Edelweiss Estates,: Phase 6-A consists of houses in he $90,000's on Chantal Circle. Adjacent and northwest of Phase 6-A is Edelweiss Estates Phase 8 consisting of homes from $.120,000-$145,000.. Again, no adverse affect on property values. Due to the fact that Steeplechase will be separated by distinctive boundaries with. ingress and egress by way of Navarro Drive coupled with case analyses of Southwood Forest a.nd Edelweiss'Estates, it is my opinion that homes `adjacent to proposed Steeplechase Subdivision will not be'adversely affected with a decrease in value. If I can: be of any further assistance,. please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, U -` ~t ' Martin G. C elose, RAA State Certifie Residential TX-132216 R V. Current Zoning, Request We request zoning of the property presented tonight as R-1 with the addition of the inclusion of a requirement for fencing on an easement along the property lines adjacent to the 40' drainage. easement on the south side of the development, We request the zoning; recommendation to require us to construct an eight foot wood fence with brick columns at eachproperty line in the proposed development. The fence will be constructed on a continuous reinforced concrete beam with appropriately designed foundation and supported between the brick columns with pipe columns. The wood fencing will have a continuous; .decorative wood :cap at the top. The brick columns .will be eight feet in height. The "good side" of the fence wihbe turned'to the adjacent, existing subdivision. The maintenance of the subject fence will be included as a responsibility of the homeowners' association of the proposed single family subdivision and the owners of properties whereon the fence is constructed. Deed restrictions will require owners of properties. whereon the .fence is .constructed to not attach other fencing to this fence... At some points along the fence easement there is a difference in elevation between the proposed project and the existing subdivision of three feet. This means the eight foot fence will have the affect of being. eleven feet in height where that .elevation difference exists.