Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00071011r INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION IMLA7s 66th Annual Conference Work Session: XIV Title: A Practical Guide to Compliance with the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act by Presenter: Helene L. Leichter Presenter's Title: Citv Attorney Presenter's Office: City of Morgan Hill © 2001 International Municipal Lawyers Association. This is an informational and educational report distributed by the International Municipal Lawyers Association during its 66th Annual Conference, held in New Orleans, LA, September 9-12, 2001. IMLA assumes no responsibility for the policies or positions presented in the report or for the presentation of its contents. September 9-12,2001 New Orleans, Louisiana RLU/PA: A Practical Guide for Municipal Attorneys By Helene L. Leichter' INTRODUCTION Religious institutions of today fulfill a vital function in American communities, often stepping in to provide needed social services when the government is unwilling or incapable of doing so. There is little contention that the youth camps, homeless shelters, food closets and other ministries operated by religious institutions help maintain the social fabric of this nation, and contribute to the health and vitality of local communities. However, as a result of these expanding social programs, the days of religious buildings that were used only for weekend worship, with the occasional mid-week service or social gathering, are long gone. Churches and synagogues today are in constant use, for everything from formal worship services to youth sports activities to day care centers. The location of these multi-faceted religious complexes, primarily in residential zoning districts, conflicts with surrounding uses when the burdens on parking, noise and traffic increases, along with the type and intensity of programs. Many homeowners who bought their property next to an existing religious institution did not anticipate the increase in activity levels, and vehemently protest the change in the nature and scope of use. Municipalities are caught in the middle of the inherent land use conflict created by the impact evolving ministries have on the use of property. Zoning restrictions which allowed placement of religious buildings in residential areas on the premise that the building would only serve local residents are now outmoded, as the facilities serve a much broader-based population. Disgrugtled neighbors disturbed by the noise and traffic generated by increased activities often protest the granting of conditional use permits to religious entities located in residential districts. These entities, in turn, demand the right -to use their property to the fullest extent, citing the need to minister to as many individuals as possible in as many creative ways as possible. This conflict played itself out repeatedly in the arena of land use law during the 1990s, which proved to be a decade of turmoil for both proponents of religious institutions attempting to gain approval of land use projects, and adherents of government neutrality towards religion. Throughout the decade, the courts and Congress jousted over the correct balance to be struck between government's interests in systematic patterns of land development, and accommodation of the rise in religious practices. ' ' Ms. Leichter is the City Attorney for Morgan Hill, California. She holds a B.A. from Stanford University and a J.D. from Santa Clara University. -1- government need only show it applied a neutral law of general applicability.b Distinguishing Sherbert as only applying to the unemployment compensation context where individualized decisions and exemptions are the norm, the Court stated that, while the compelling governmental interest test is appropriate in the free speech or discrimination context, it is not in this instance because "what it would produce here - a private right to ignore generally applicable laws - is a constitutional anomaly."' In response to Smith, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), which explicitly reinstated the "compelling governmental interest" standard of Sherbert.' However, in June 1997, in Boerne v. Flores, the United States Supreme Court struck down "RFRA" on the basis that it violated the separation of powers provision in the United States Constitution.8 Congress was determined to outdo the Supreme Court and reinstitute the "compelling interest" standard.9 RLUIPA was introduced in the Senate on July 13, 2000, and passed by Congress on July 27, 2000, without significant hearing or debate. It was signed into law by President Clinton on September 27, 2000. By linking the application of RLUIPA to those programs or activities which receive federal assistance, the drafters of the Act hoped to avoid the constitutional infirmities that plagued RFRA.10 RLUIPA was pushed into existence in haste to satisfy a narrow political agenda." As discussed below, it is having serious legal and practical ramifications for municipalities attempting to comply with its broadly worded provisions. Chief among these is that the very premise of the Act - that religious institutions are entitled to 5 Employment Division. Department of Human Resources of Oregon v Smith 110 S.Ct. 1595, 1599-1603 (1990). 'Employment Division. Department of Human Resources of Oregon v Smithsupra, 110 S.Ct at 1602-1604. ' 42 U.S.C. section 2000bb. ' City of Boeme v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) - denial of permit to expand church facility upheld as constitutional; RFRA invalidated because power cited by Congress to enact RFRA - the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - did not act as a grant to Congress to unilaterally determine what constitutes substantive violations of the Constitution, only enforcement powers. 9 Hon. Charles Canady, Extension of Remarks, July 14, 2000, E1234. '0 Id., E1235. " RLUIPA was supported by the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, a coalition of more than eighty religious and legal advocacy groups. RLUIPA was opposed by the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Towns and Townships, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. -3- Programs. Projects and Acts Subject to RLUIPA RLUIPA provides that the constitutional test applies to "a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance," or where the substantial burden would affect international or Indian commerce, or where the substantial burden imposed is a result of program where the government makes "individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.016 However, because of the distinction to "program or activity," simply because a municipality receives federal funds does not seem to translate to coverage of all land use regulations under the constitutional test found in RLUIPA. As stated by Senator Hatch in the legislative hearings, "[i]n most applications, this [program or activity] means the department that administers the challenged land use regulation or the department that administers the institution in which the claimant is housed." Thus, any programs which receive federal financial assistance, such as low- income housing grants, or in which individualized assessment is made of the uses to be placed on the property, such as conditional use permits, or any program or activity, which, in the aggregate, could arguably affect interstate commerce, should be scrutinized for compliance with RLUIPA. Exercise of Religion The exercise of religion has clearly gone beyond Saturday or Sunday services, weekly prayer meetings and potluck suppers. The religious institutions of today minister to the masses through youth programs, shelters for the homeless, drug rehabilitation centers, and other programs formerly thought of as social welfare work.. Do these activities constitute "an exercise of religion" under RLUIPA? The actual definition of "religious exercise" in RLUIPA is not particularly helpful. Specifically, RLUIPA provides that . . any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief" and a "use, building or conversion of real property for religious prirposes" are both protected. Although the legislative history contains statements inferring that it is not the intent of the drafters of the Act to change the definition of "religious exercise" as found in current jurisprudence," such jurisprudence has taken a widely varied stance on what constitutes religious exercise. Commentators have grouped prior case law which has defined religious exercise into several groups, including those cases which look for a link between defined spiritual tenets and the activity in question, those which look at the type 16 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a)(1). "Additional Discussion on Intended Scope of Land Use Provision, S7776; RLUIPA also specifically provides that it is to be broadly construed in favor of religious exercise, "to the maximum extent permitted by the terns of this chapter and the Constitution" and that RLUIPA should not be construed to repeal law which is "equally as protective of or "more protective of religious exercise. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-3(g)-(h). -5- What 'is a substantial burden? RLUIPA does not contain a definition of the term, because, as stated in the legislative history, "it is not the intent of this Act to create a new standard for the definition of 'substantial burden' on religious exercise. Instead, that term as used in the Act should be interpreted by reference to Supreme Court jurisprudence."22 Prior case law, even pre-RFRA, contains several approaches to determining whether a substantial burden on religion exists. First and foremost, many courts have required a plaintiff to establish some impact other than simply an economic burden.23 Other courts utilize a simplified test, balancing between the impact on the religious entity and the impact on government's interest. For example, a restriction requiring home worshipers to move their services was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit, which found that there was an impact on the religious group "in terms of convenience, dollars or aesthetics" by requiring the parties to worship elsewhere, but, when compared to the substantial interest of a municipality in preserving its zoning regulations, this was not a substantial burden.24 Other courts have focused on whether the "burden" violates a central tenet of the religion.25 In Thiry v. Carlson, a municipality condemned a grave site allegedly sacred to the Quaker religion. However, the Quaker tenets did not treat a relocated grave site as any less sacred than the original, and thus no substantial burden occurred.26 Likewise, the Ninth Circuit, in a pre-RFRA case, found no substantial burden in denial of a permit to conduct services in a residence, when services had been held in the banquet hall of a hotel, stating "[t]he burden on religious practice _ is not great when the, government action, in this ca'e the denial of a use permit, does not restrict current religious practice but rather prevents a change in religious practice. N27 - - 22 Additional Discussion on Intended Scope on Land Use Provision, July 27, 2000, S7776. 23 Lakewood. Ohio Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc v City of Lakewood Ohio 699 F.2d 303, 306 (1983) ("[i]nconvenient economic burdens on religious freedom do not rise to a constitutionally impermissible infringement of free exercise.") 24 Grosz v. City of Miami Beach. Florida, 721 F.2d 729 (1983). 25 RLUIPA contains explicit language of RLUIPA that "religious exercise" should not be determined with regard to whether the activity is "compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." 42 U.S.C. section 2000cc-5(7)(A). There is no such language with regard to substantial burden, so a strong argument can be made that Congress intended to incorporate the prior case law, including the "central tenet" analysis of substantial burden. 26 Thiry v. Carlson, 78 F.3d 1491, 1494-1496. (10' Cir. 1996); see also Lakewood. Ohio Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses Inc v City of Lakewood Ohio 699 F.2d 303 (1983), in finding no tenet requiring worshiping in a building of particular aesthetics or location, "[t]he centrality of the burdened religious observance to the believer's faith influences the determination of an infringement." 27 Christian Gospel Church v. City and County of San Francisco, 896 F.2d 1221 (9a, Cir. 1990); see also Christ College. Inc. v. Board of Supervisors Fairfax County, 944 F.2d 901 (4 h Cir. 1991) - denial of permits to construct and operate religious school in residential zone not substantial burden because no showing as to why rights may only be exercised in residential zone or on particular parcels; cf., Stuart Circle Parish, supra, 946 F.Supp. at 1238-1239 (restriction to serving meals to the poor which restricted -7- push trial and appellate courts to carefully scrutinize whether a governmental interest is truly compelling. Least Restrictive Means Again, RLUIPA contains no definition of "least restrictive means" and prior case law will have to be consulted for guidance. The least restrictive means test is very fact- based, and the more reasonable the restrictions, the more likely they are to be sustained.` If the restrictions are targeted at the religious nature of the use, however, they are less likely to be sustained. For example, New Milford, Connecticut, attempted to ban prayer meetings at a residence on the basis of impacts to traffic and parking. A federal magistrate ruled that the Town did not use the least restrictive means available because it could have restnctec7 arkin through signs and tickets, without.. 'a(getin he g te „ ra ermeetin s themselves. , and In _ tra an ffic infamous case from the United States Supreme 9 35 g part of the practice of the Santeria religion, the most compelling of governmental interests -prevention of animal cruelty and public health concerns caused by animal carcasses - were not sufficient to sustain an ordinance that had been enacted to specifically target one religious practice. PRACTICAL GUIDANCE Identifying Areas of Controversy Municipal practitioners, having familiarized themselves with applicable prior case law and the text of RLUIPA, should identify departments and practice areas in their own agencies which may be fallible to RLUIPA claims. These will generally be limited to the planning context, but other programs which receive federal funding and generate land use issues (such as low income housing programs) may also be a source of concern. Existing ordinances and resolutions which may be subject to RLUIPA claims should be evaluated and redrafted, if necessary. In particular, ordinances which totally exclude religious uses in a jurisdiction or specified zones will be fallible, especially if other uses which generate similar levels of noise, traffic and architecture are allowed. Ordinances which have overly broad definitions of allowable uses are also problematic. 34 Grosz v. City of Miami Beach. Florida, 721 F.2d 729, 739-740 (1983) - home services violated zoning laws predicated on noise and traffic limitations; see also Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 169 (1944) - ban on child distributing leaflets reasonable regulation in light of child labor and safety laws. se Frank J. Murray, "Judge Lifts Ban on Prayer Meetings," Washington Post, July 20, 2001; see also Callahan v. Woods, supra, 736 F.2d at 1272-1273, "[i]f the compelling state goal can be accomplished despite the exemption of a particular individual, then a regulation which denies an exemption is not the least restrictive means. . . " ' Church of the Lukumi Babalu Ave. Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 524, 533 (1993). -9- including religious entities, carefully define the range of intended uses on property, giving detailed descriptions of the time, intensity, and type of uses. After such descriptions are analyzed on a staff level, applications can be scrutinized by the attorney's office for identification of uses which are potentially religious exercises. This careful definition of the various proposed uses will also enable the attorney's office to determine if a substantial burden may be found from denial of the application. The Critical Land Use Hearing Municipal practitioners should ensure that the record created at the zoning hearing reflects the government's case. It is advisable to outline potential RLUIPA claims and defenses well before the hearing, anticipating evidence which may be used for or against the municipality. At the hearing, attorneys should not hesitate to cross-examine the applicant to probe whether the proposed use is religious in nature, as defined by the religion's tenets or teachings, whether alternate sites or uses have been considered, and if rejected, why, and whether and how any mitigation measures proposed by the government would truly impact the applicant. Drafting Sufficient Findings of Fact Although many municipal law practitioners would argue findings are not required, and should never be adopted in a legislative action such as a zoning matter, such findings may prove critical in assisting a reviewing court to determine whether the record before the municipality demonstrates that a substantial burden was imposed on a religious entity, and whether the government had a compelling interest in the. land use regulation and accomplished that interest by the least restrictive means. "'Given the scrutiny that will be attached to whether the government has a compelling interest in a particular regulation, articulation of such interests in findings may prove helpful in later litigation. In the best of all possible worlds, the city attorney should draft the findings well before the land use hearing is held or record is made. The findings should serve as an outline for the attorney and staff as to what evidence may be marshaled in support of the municipality's case. Sample findings from one RLUIPA case are attached to this paper as Attachment B. Political Strategies Mainstream religious institutions are a significant source of votes for elected officials, and as such, they are often given due deference by politicians, both on the dais and off. In additional to such practical considerations, politicians are under intense pressure from the religious right and general populace to conform to "family values," including maintenance of personal religious practices. Consequently, politicians are often concerned about the public perception attached to repudiation of the interests of religious institutions. In contrast, religious sects which do not adhere to more traditional beliefs, or which likely have far fewer practitioners or supporters, may not receive the same treatment from legislators. -11- PUBLIC LAW 106-274-SEPT. 22, 2000 Public Law 106-274 106th Congress An Act 114 STAT. 803 Sept. 22, 2000 (S.28691 To protect religious liberty, and for other purposes, , Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the. United States ofAmericd4h Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TrILE. This Act may be cited as the "Religious Land Use and Institu- tionalized Person's Act of 2006". SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF LAND USE AS RELIGIOUS EXERCISE. (a) ,SUBSTANTIAL.. BURDENS (1) GEkRAi. RVIX. -No government shall impose or imple- ment a land use regulation in a, manner that 'imposes a substan- tW.,burden on the rgUgious ,exercise of a person, including a religioiis assembly or ,t` n;stitut bn, unless the government. dem- onstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution- (A), Js,. in furtherance of a compelling, governmental p~$)~is the leash restrictive, means of furthering that (2) 5 goernmental intezest.. COPE OIL APPLICATION.-This subsection applies in'any case.,in w ch , W lhh& subs antial .burden is imposed In a pzoaram even u the Duraen results from a rule of general; appnca- .bility; or _ (C); the.. substantial burden. is imposed in•, the implementation q a;land. use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which, a, government. makos, or as in place formal or informal' procedures or practices. ,that permit.; the government: to make; individualized assess- ments of the proposed uses for the property ul owed, (b) DISGRU_4NATION.Aj$,D EXCLV§tQN - ,EQUAL TERM= NTo government shall impose or -imple- ment a landuse regulation in a manner that, treats a religious assembly;oar institut on-or less than equal. terms with a noareli- gious,assembly or institution (2),NONDI6,CRIMINATION-.No goverliment shall. impose or implement a land use regulation that • discri minates against Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. 42 USC 2000cc note. 42 USC 2000cc. EXHIBIT A PUBLIC LAW 106-274-SEPT. 22, 2000 114 STAT. 805 (f) AUTHORITY OF UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE THIS ACT.- The United States may bring an action for injunctive or declaratory relief to enforce compliance with this Act. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to deny, impair, or otherwise affect any right or authority of the Attorney General; the United States, or any agency, officer, or employee of the United States, acting under any law other than this subsection, to institute or intervene in any proceeding. (g) LIMITATION.-If the only jurisdictional basis for applying a provision of this Act is a claim that a substantial burden by a government on religious exercise affects, or that removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with -indian tribes, the provision shall not :apply. if the government demonstrates that all substantial burdens on, or the removal of all substantial burdens from, similar religious exercise throughout the Nation would not lead in the aggregate to a substantial effect on commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes. SEC. 5. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. 42 USC (a) RELIGIOUS BELIEF UNAFFECTED.-Nothing in this Act shall 2000cc4. be construed to authorize any government to burden any religious belief. (b) RELIGIOUS EXERCISE NOT REGULATED.-Nothing in this Act shall create any basis for restricting or burdening religious exercise or for claims against a religious organization including any reli- giously affiliated school or university, not acting under color of law. (c) CLAIMS TO FUNDING UNAFFECTED.-Nothing in this Act shall create or preclude a right of any religious organization to receive. funding or other assistance from a government, or of any person to receive government funding for a religious activity, but this Act may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise. (d) OTHER AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON FUNDING UNAFFECTED.-Nothing in this Act-shall- (1) authorize a government to regulate or affect, directly or indirectly, the activities or policies of a person other than a government as a condition of receiving funding or other assistance; or (2) restrict any authority that may exist under other law to so regulate or affect, except as provided in this Act. (e) GOVERNMENTAL DISCRETION IN ALLEVIATING BURDENS ON RELIGIOUS EXERCISE.-A government may avoid the preemptive force of any provision of this Act by changing the policy or practice that results in a substantial burden on religious exercise, by retaining the policy or practice and exempting the substantially burdened religious exercise, by providing exemptions from the policy or practice for applications that substantially burden religious exer- cise, or by any other means that eliminates the substantial burden. (f)' EFFECT ON OTHER LAw.-With respect to a claim brought under this Act, proof that a substantial burden on a person's reli- gious exercise affects, or removal of that burden would affect, com- merce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, shall not establish any inference or presumption PUBLIC LAW 106-274-SEPT. 22, 2000 114 STAT. 807 (ii) any branch, department, agency, instrumen- tality, or official of an entity listed in clause (i); and (iii) any other person acting under color of State law; and (B) for the purposes of sections 4(b) and 5, includes the United States, a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official of the United States, and any other person acting under color of Federal law. (5) LAND USE REGULATION.-The term "land use regulation" means a zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a claimant's use or develop- ment of land (including a structure affixed to land), if the claimant has an ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property interest in the regulated land or a contract or options to acquire such an interest. (6) PROGRAM 'OR ACTIVITY.-The term "program or activity" means all of the operations of any entity as described in para- graph (1) or (2) of section 606 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-4a). (7) RELIGIOUS -EXERCISE.-. (A) IN. GENERAL.-The term "religious exercise" includes any exercise of religion, whether or. not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief. (B) RULE.-The use, building, or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be religious exercise of the person or entity that uses or intends to use the property for that purpose. Approved September 22, 2000. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY-S. 2869: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Vol. 146 (2000):. July 27, considered ana pawed Senate and House. WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 36 (2000): Sept. 22, Presidential statement. 0 WHEREAS, on February 7, 2001, the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill held a public hearing on the Application; and, WHEREAS, at the public hearing on February 7, 2001, testimony and exhibits were submitted by Applicant, staff, and others, including the file in this matter, which testimony and exhibits are hereby incorporated into the record of this matter; and, WHEREAS, at the public hearing on February 7, 2001, Applicant requested a continuation of the hearing in light of additional matters raised and documents presented at the hearing, and to explore unresolved questions and share their findings with the Council at a later date; and, WHEREAS, the Council voted to continue the hearing to February 21, 2001, at Applicant's request; and, WHEREAS, on February 21, 2001, the hearing on the Application continued and Applicant was allowed to present new information regarding their application as requested by Application on February 7, 2001; and, WHEREAS, following Applicant's presentation on February 21, 2001, the City Council voted 4-1 to deny the zoning application; and, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill, based upon all documents, statements and facts known to the City, does hereby resolve: SECTION 1. The Council denies the Application because it does not comport with the requirements of the City's Municipal Code to include sufficient information on such applications to allow the Commission to fully consider the goals and objectives of Planned Unit Development ("PUD") zoning. Specifically: (A) Municipal Code Section 18.30.050 requires submission of a development plan for a PUD which defines "the general manner in which the PUD will develop." Section 18.30.050 further requires that if development is to occur in phased construction, such phases shall be identified," and further, that an application must include "[a] development scheme, indicating all phasing of construction." (B) The past practice of the City has been to require PUD applicants to fully disclose future plans in order to determine whether a proposal complies with the intent and purposes behind the PUD zoning designation, and/or whether a particular proposal comports with the City's land use objectives and requirements. The Council further finds that this past practice was communicated by staff to the Applicant. Staff also informed Applicant that the Planning Commission and/or Council may not be receptive to an application which did not comport with the past practice for submission requirements. (C) Furthermore, the evidence submitted at the hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, including but not limited to descriptions of future plans from the Applicant's newsletters, designations on Applicant's own plans regarding future construction plans, conflicting -2- zoning application is the least restrictive means of accomplishing the health, safety and welfare interests of the citizens of the City. SECTION 7. The City Council finds that denial of the Application would not substantially burden Applicant's exercise of religion. Specifically, the Council finds that Applicant has failed to prove that Applicant's current and reasonably foreseeable, near-term educational needs cannot be met at their current location; that Applicant stated that they had looked at ten to twelve other sites, and thus there are other alternative sites available to Applicant; and that Applicant is not forced to move from their current location because the sale of their current site is contingent upon the zoning amendment being granted. SECTION 8. The City Council finds that the current uses in the Planned Unit Development Overlay District are consistent with the criteria specified in Chapter 18.30 of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Morgan Hill at a Regular Meeting held on 21" the day of March 2001, by the following vote. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CERTIFICATION 1, IRMA TORREZ, CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. adopted by the City Council at the Regular Meeting on March 21, 2001. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL. DATE: IRMA TORREZ, City Clerk -4- E-mail arguments made against the Appomattox extension (7 e-mails) Argum'ent' _ Nurinb rfl ai e ..men A16% e_ Safety of children 6 Safety (in general) 5 Non-residential traffic in neighborhood 4 Added traffic congestion in neighborhood 3 Noise caused by traffic 3 Diminished resale values of homes 2 They bought into a "closed" neighborhood 2 Safety of pets inadvertently let out 1 Still be traffic/delays from church 1 East Bypass Plan 1 Would set precedent on opening Appomattox 1 Church is more "volume business" than church 1 Apparent conflict of interest between some P&Z commissioners and church 1 Bad site for this size church 1 11 E-mail arguments made for the Appomattox extension (28 e-mails) h . Afigument z . N br of nddLL The church is/will be a good neighbor 20 There will only be occasional traffic 10 Safety for the church 8 s Access was available when church bought property 7 There will be no negative impacts 7 Church use better than commercial 6 Church would be able to unload faster/more efficiently 5 When platted, Appomattox extended 3 Raintree would have second access 3 Appomattox paid for by tax payers 2 St. Thomas Aquinas has two exits 1 Traffic increases are inevitable 1 Appomattox would not be able to extend further 1 It would prevent houses from being built 1 Church would have to sell property 1 Safer/quicker for Raintree if church has driveway 1 Church users may come from Raintree 1 E-mail arguments made against the Appomattox extension (7 e-mails) Argument Number of times mentioned Safety of children 6 Safety (in general) 5 Non-residential traffic in neighborhood 4 Added traffic congestion in neighborhood 3 Noise caused by traffic 3 Diminished resale values of homes 2 They bought into a "closed" neighborhood 2 Safety of pets inadvertently let out 1 Still be traffic/delays from church 1 East Bypass Plan 1 Would set precedent on opening Appomattox 1 Church is more "volume business" than church 1 Apparent conflict of interest between some P&Z commissioners and church 1 Bad site for this size church 1 E-mail arguments made for the Appomattox extension (28 e-mails) Argument T Number of times mentioned The church is/will be a good neighbor 20 There will only be occasional traffic 10 Safety for the church g Access was available when church bought property 7 There will be no negative impacts 7 Church use better than commercial 6 Church would be able to unload faster/more efficiently 5 When platted, Appomattox extended 3 Raintree would have second access 3 Appomattox paid for by tax payers 2 St. Thomas Aquinas has two exits 1 Traffic increases are inevitable 1 Appomattox would not be able to extend further 1 It would prevent houses from being built 1 Church would have to sell property 1 Safer/quicker for Raintree if church has driveway 1 Church users may come from Raintree 1 Table 2 Adiacent Drive Spacing Minimum Spacing Desirable Spacing Street Classification (Feet) (Feet) Major Arterial 275 X50--"~ ` 230 300 Minor Arterial Collector 185 235 Local Street 150 190 W Freeway Frontage Road Access and Location Requirements: (i) Driveways shall not be closer than two hundred fifty feet (2501 from an exit ramp as measured from the striped gore of the exit ramp to the centerline of the drive. (ii) Driveways shall not be closer than one hundred feet (100) from an entrance ramp as measured from the striped gore of the entrance ramp to the centerline of the drive. (Iii) Driveways shall be located in accordance with the 'Operations and Procedures Manual' published by the Texas Department of Trans- portation, Sections 4-601 and 4-602. (iv) Permits shall be approved by the Resident Engineers Office of the Texas Department of Transportation, in conjunction with approval by the City Engineer. es and lanned interchan isti t id li l Th p g . o ex ng e nes app y (v) ese gu (vi) In addition to ramp spacing, driveways on frontage roads under the jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Transportation shall also meet the other requirements of this chapter as major arterial streets. _ (4) Comer Clearance (a) No residential driveway approach shall be constructed within thirty feet (30) of the comer of a street intersection. This measurement shall be taken from the intersection of property lines at the comer. (b) At intersections of arterials with channelized right turn lanes with yield control, a corner clearance distance in accordance with those set forth in Figure 2 shall be required for the first downstream driveway when adjacent spacing requirements can't be met due to lack of frontage and all means to acquire shared access drives or cross access easements have been exhausted. This distance shall be measured from the channelized median to the nearest edge of the proposed driveway as indicated in Figure 2. I 3-4 Rev. 10197 Ai J: s~ f F. 1 k f R f, ~ T r J -l ;i f ) I ~ t ~i XX ) Ae L I I ~ al a 1-4 SZ5~ i Y } • I g I 42 _ 'ii SCE tat i l f I f ! , kt i I 14. 10 00" I i ta~ 4~fat o- f•' z~ i e i I I ~ ~ I ~>e ' Y E, fit gig I }`•"~~~t+~~j{'s~~Ft~~~~{ iii; ! 3 1i111il ttt ftlics<. p 41 ; LL--,. I o FKEDEVELOf MENT MEETING The purpose of a predevelopment meeting io to meet the City staff that will be involved with your development and identify general issues that need further analysis. Along with the discussion of these major issues, Staff will talk about the development process, distribute necessary information and discuss what permits will be required for your particular development. This meeting is in no way a complete review of your project. Staff will perform a formal thorough review once the minimum requirements are submitted for your particular development. Date of Meeting: 211.4 (0 j Applicant(s): `1I (L , l C llm) City Staff present: Proposal: uuvt~,h L CL",C41 tt crn ? ~j~ O-M a- & X y`ovU u W&k Miscellaneous: io6f Cs - a o- s Q-eqt , ) ~y S: s(~p CyxuJ~ J t q cc, (ou S~ It ( fA ~C~'vl C(l p z i &Y Y(Ler C1 Utility loouco: Water Availability/Capacity: Sanitary Sewer Availability/Capacity: Impact feco: Electrical Fire Hydrant Mlocellaneouo: La nd5ca pi ng/Street5ca pe: Sidewalks: Dumpoter Location: 5igno: Screening/Buffering: Variance Requeoto: PREDEVELOPMENT MEETING The purpose of a predevelopment meeting io to meet the City Staff that will be involved with your development and identify general issues that need further analysis. Along with the discussion of these major issues, staff will talk about the development process, distribute necessary information and discuss what permits will be required for your particular development. This meeting is in no way a complete review of your project. Staff will perform a formal thorough review once the minimum requirements are submitted for your particular development. Applicant(s): ~tC Date of Meeting: City Staff present: TA Proposal: -t Pil Miscellaneous: Utility 155ueo: Water Availability/Capacity: Sanitary Sewer Availability/Capacity: Impact Fees: Electrical Fire Hydrant Miocellaneouo: Land 5ca pi ng/Street5ca pe: Dumpoter Location: Signs: Screening/Buffering: Variance Requeote: 1 nr., nxF / ~ ~ x2Ub 3yg IS *n> x2.es 1' 1~~',,. r I I r Deroa ve~elgtdn ~ s x2,2s - , - ii3b Y tics v} x x n3a ~ L pT. Y 111,,,F1 FF! x ~ t t TJ r 3U.> r j 253 1 _ _ pense Ve9ebticn r +r( O '~ML7H T Ali mss" 6 v It I t.i ml • ~ AI 9 ~ r) •I,~,1' 1 ~2~ 1; f~ ` l' t,~ ~ 1' 1. 2s.35 / / o i ~r ` S n•ai 1 22)4 1 t ! ` Z/?3 I ) x 20.7 17' SO, { 1111 !F ! vlv, / Al; 1 2 0.] X"2 ra• , x . _ . 'i x ~ Erin - rns nn~` > L~ - 'l PKWY. 0 ' ' s ~ Will 2nn 2M5 iIi;111: 567-. PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: 25o& 0-501 3 UJTA/~ ~ S- ~ t,/ A4 7F-< TW ~u vc) l u~~f 5L' Sv m ~L j.- ~JLA rn+e off.- u rn~~-~ ~O~I3-2--~ ► Z ('9b 07~ - w zl~C~I ~6c/ -79 7C, pl=t tr9/4 1 ~ ~5 rA.y 01 To lei ' A rka~~ 25~~ Ono C" (Zv ~l~l~fi 7%ww~L~ aka a$um~rr/~r ~104~- %~gl~ awl d Si/wlf r 6Cl - -d W 1 P), (3-3 e) 6 U,*7 5 Io l 1 ~t Pv~~ ~~,~r~~t PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: ~P ~~0 Y~n4~`~' k --6) C Cc w ~ 1 ~ 7? e 04-0 i 7 BOG I~,¢~eezn.~f¢ez'D"T W,z01 Ullldets a~01 ,,d~ ht#;~ ~llintYe~, ~dVeJ `Igo 4()qaaC)X br. -~N, kCc- (aO l D lGc 4 C /C~ V c C( la ~aeCan Cjt-~+-n.a.c:~ ~J6b~ ~'u_~nlazrc.lczc,d C{- J PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: n y~o ~2 oy4 ~i/4 c7/~ /'Y' 1/ a-1 IZ ~e~~ l I 1 br . C ~ W4- 'o PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: 7 7 o i A--Pull- -r- C-f7 " Skot m,. ct- C~ 7 . I'w 7 o- sIC rz ~T / ? Lq vAli cir /~U S44V'~ 4t6 A - PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: e,E-k) c- I'~a Cabea R Ilerd~n 6 5S-9g2~ 702 (✓,1~4U., s Al ~ i (di r 6t ~ ~ l`a` -7 ~ lJ - X712 lJ.n Z&64b),/dern~e55 7~r. A) 1,,,m g&gao(.. Cow 6~~-9776 `°u ~ W (,(&VWm) M u (oG (o -51 2 7 ~bo~ ~JibI"al. ~ ~ a~ o~ ~ ~t41~u~s.s ~ V-733:? ?yV4,j,j? 2.103 V1 I o ere e.,,zs /Vs~t'k d2~~ wi Ic~~-wess GDC YZZ~ PA (D" Tv~ .1~ 1 ~E5 -d8 l ~,j, ((~vov0 ~r N 7 (PU- 77Coy 77`l 9b' N, wi~dwwev~ ~t~ a& Oq a&1V Ck PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: lU~~ ~71 -7 6 66 16 - 9,z5=8 7&~ gS-gq 167 9 6 a ~o Z/~1~~ CY- 57,5 - 57.7/ a ~ar~ PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: C-~z:~-rte L/Jl nwz- ,-.2 5,05 A-c- ~26V5 i -1 7'2a'q{o TV -7 7Y {S c 2 S- Ovrvy "U (C C- /Y76:X/t" tl*,q (-P, '7 -2 9' 77,s-- ? 1 PiO U PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: ~U3p~~ W. (311 +~~=-y~ 2 ~U ~ m ~.Lj;l-~SJ~S C~•~~s i ~r 96 70 l hn~ c Cis ~ ~ G ~5 ~ e+~ 02~ ~ ~ o•nnaJ~lefL ~ . C~ . Z&O (~a !M ~l T1 DC.~ 8909 ",W.411 )9-!f C , CS . CS l C 00 PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the a 'oi ing pro erty: y ,J 9~ a5o~~ e~ PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: - Co O ~a-r rte, xv, PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for acces.s to the adjoining property: '78of Sr E 2 3 00 ~--rP e L "N Kto o-r'r 4 ~s.y Spy.Al&JN ~f l~ •CC 1Z t -T7A T Ij e S t / ~a .rte e.r ~ffi Fe PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: rl~ (~br C, t (9,- ADO K(Ct n ~ a^~c~ LL;,,,eL 160LA -2--3 C) r in P rrii V, Ck ,BSI o/ 6,// c~'//i~/~,Ca-' ,2 ~ 0 -OC)~ qiao PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: e~a2 ,Z It R~Dcr, lam PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: 07 c1r, JtMM 0- o a So C '-L -~.~k- I- it, Dear Commissioners, Attached to this letter is a petition signed by residents of Raintree subdivision who oppose the opening of Appomattox to the South. There is a great amount of concern, even though it might have not been as evident at the first meeting on May 17th where the A&M Church of Christ's request for a conditional use permit was tabled. The church mentioned at that May 17th public hearing for this issue that there was a low turnout at the meeting they had for us neighbors to show us their plan and answer questions. This low turnout was due to the fact that Mr. Duncum called me the afternoon of the meeting and asked to change the time from 7:00 to 5:30. I was not able to notify everyone in the neighborhood about this change. Under usual circumstances, the contact person for the Neighborhood Association is notified of the public hearings affecting their areas, in addition to the 200ft notification list, but for this past meeting the Raintree Neighborhood Association was left off the list. I, as the contact person, did not know about the Public Hearing until 3 days before, and though I did my best to get the word out, it was not possible to notify all 283 homes in the neighborhood. I did, however, receive notification about this June 7th meeting, and though I am not able to attend, wanted the Commission know that there is a large amount of concern over this issue and we managed to get petitions down most streets over the past week to show the level of concern and opposition to opening Appomattox. There were several streets that we just didn't have time to cover, but for the streets that our neighbors did cover everyone signed in opposition (other than the people that were not home). There was not one person that I know of that was in agreement with opening Appomattox. There are signatures from 121 homes out of a total of 283 in the neighborhood (a total of 160 individual signatures). Those that did not sign were not home or able to be contacted. We have many concerns about the opening of Appomattox including the following: The East Bypass Plan stresses preserving the nature and integrity of existing neighborhoods. We feel this plan to open Appomattox will compromise both the nature and integrity of Raintree. Those of us that served on the East Bypass Planning Team feel very strongly about this issue and those feelings steered a majority of our decisions about the plan. All church members (1200 members now, with estimated future membership of 2000) entering from the north or west would use Appomattox to avoid going to Emerald Parkway and back. Note that the Emerald Parkway route does have an easy U-turn lane. The big turn on Raintree Drive means people leaving lower Raintree might not see the congestion in time (might this require a future stoplight at Appomattox?). c. Residents on Appomattox all said they moved there because of the quiet neighborhood. Opening Appomattox forces a major change in neighborhood lifestyle. Because of the plan for various schools (a 2-day preschool is already in operation) and activities at the church, dense traffic will occur more often than just Wednesdays and Sundays. Other churches in this area have not needed access to local neighborhoods. (Why not add a stoplight and/or a turn lane at the frontage road entrance?) While most Raintree residents view the church as a desirable neighbor, most do not want Appomattox opened. "Good fences make good neighbors." Concerns about where the overflow parking would be during big events that draw church members as well as guests are prevalent among those living adjacent to the property. That overflow is not likely to be out on the bypass, but along Appomattox and Raintree Drive. Is the planned parking (600 spaces) enough to handle such events and standard church services when full? We respectively submit these concerns and petitions opposing the opening of Appomattox. Thank you for your time and consideration. Carla Young Co-President, Raintree Neighborhood Association 2711 Redhill College Station, TX 77845 693-2757 Exhibit A Ordinance. 1638, Section 8.10 is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Buffers/Screen Fences 1. Applicability Perimeter buffers shall be provided on parcels abutting developed (platted) or developing (in the process of platting) sites in accordance with the standards of this subsection. 2. Relationship to Other Landscaping Standards Landscaping provided to meet the buffer landscaping standards of this section may not be counted towards meeting a project's landscape point requirements. The area of a site dedicated to a perimeter buffer shall not be included in calculating a site's minimum landscape point requirements. 3. Buffer Width Buffer width shall be measured from the property line. The minimum width of required buffers shall be as follows: Developing Use Abutting Parcel (Zonigg)_;~. ,(Classification) Single-Fain. Multi Faam, Non Residential - Residential* 'residential Single-Family N/A N/A N/A Duplex [2] N/A [1] Multi-Family 10 [1] N/A [I OR 2] Commercial 15 [2] 10 [1] 5 Industrial 25 [2] 15 [1] 5 1. A solid wooden fence with a minimum height of 6 feet is required to be placed on the common boundary line. 2. A solid EFIS, masonry or concrete wall with a minimum height of 6 feet and a maximum height of 8 feet shall be placed on the common boundary line. * Includes duplexes. 4. Plant Material Unless otherwise expressly stated, a minimum of one (1) 5-gallon shrub at a minimum of 3 feet in height shall be provided per 3 linear feet of landscape buffer. A minimum of one (1) 2-inch caliper canopy tree shall be provided per 25 linear feet of landscape buffer. All landscape planting areas that are not dedicated to trees or shrubs shall be landscaped with grass, ground cover, or other appropriate landscape treatment in accordance with Sec. 11.2.C. 5. Parking Area Screening When off-street parking areas containing 5 or more spaces or service or utility areas serving non-residential uses do not share a common boundary but are visible from and within 200 feet of residential uses, the parking area shall be screened from view. Screening may be accomplished using plantings, berms, structural elements or combinations thereof, and must be three feet above the parking lot elevation. 6. Maintenance All landscaping materials and fences shall be maintained by the owners of the property that was required to install such landscaping materials and fence under this section. B. Height Any nonresidential structure within 100 feet of a developed residential use or existing single- family structure shall maintain a height equal to the maximum allowable height of the residential district. y V 01-10-3 E-mail arguments made against the Appomattox extension (7 e-mails) r Argument Number of tim °"'s mention "'d . Safety of children 6 Safety (in general) 5 Non-residential traffic in neighborhood 4 Added traffic congestion in neighborhood 3 Noise caused by traffic 3 Diminished resale values of homes 2 They bought into a "closed" neighborhood 2 Safety of pets inadvertently let out 1 Still be traffic/delays from church 1 East Bypass Plan 1 Would set precedent on opening Appomattox 1 Church is more "volume business" than church 1 Apparent conflict of interest between some P&Z commissioners and church 1 Bad site for this size church 1 E-mail arguments made for the Appomattox extension (28 e-mails) N Effn er'of tiro The church is/will be a good neighbor 20 There will only be occasional traffic 10 Safety for the church g Access was available when church bought property 7 There will be no negative impacts 7 Church use better than commercial 6 Church would be able to unload faster/more efficiently 5 When platted, Appomattox extended 3 Raintree would have second access 3 Appomattox paid for by tax payers 2 St. Thomas Aquinas has two exits 1 Traffic increases are inevitable 1 Appomattox would not be able to extend further 1 It would prevent houses from being built 1 Church would have to sell property 1 Safer/quicker for Raintree if church has driveway 1 Church users may come from Raintree 1 Walton & Associates Consulting Engineers A&M Church of Christ Traffic Impact Assessment Conclusions and Recommendations 1. The proposed development of the A&M Church of Christ (church) will have minimal impact on the traffic characteristics of the roadway system in the study area, except on Sunday mornings during the peak discharge period. 2. During that Sunday morning peak discharge period, the effects of the traffic generated by the church can be mitigated by allowing a connection from the site to Raintree Drive via Appomattox Drive. 3. The connection of the church site to Appomattox Drive is not expected to create an unreasonable or unsafe condition on Appomattox Drive or on Raintree Drive under current conditions. 4. The connection of the church site to Appomattox Drive is not needed except for the peak Sunday morning discharge period and could be gated at other times without undue effect on the operations of the church from ingress-egress standpoint. 5. A second driveway connection to the East Frontage Road at the northwest corner of the church tract is neither desirable nor necessary. Adequate queue storage is provided in the site plan for the movements anticipated. 6. Signal timing improvements to the diamond interchange at Southwest Parkway and SH6 are necessary and possible to mitigate the effects of the traffic generated by this and other developments during the Sunday morning peak discharge period. 7. The traffic generated by the church development is not representative of the intense land use since the weekday trip generation is minimal. 8. Trip generation of the proposed church development is approximately equivalent to that of residential development during normal weekday peak hour periods. It does exceed residential generation on Wednesday evenings after the peak hour and on Sundays. 9. The addition of acceleration or deceleration lanes to the East Frontage Roads of the Bypass is not required for this development. 10. The connection of Raintree Drive southward to North Forest Drive is preferable to the connection of Appomattox Drive in Raintree southward to North Forest Drive. One connection or the other should be provided for from a transportation perspective. 11. The connection of the A&M Church of Christ tract to Raintree Drive across the undeveloped tract at the southeast corner of the Raintree Drive/Frontage Road intersection is possible but will not function well and will reduce the scope and effectiveness of entry identification to the Raintree Subdivision. erne+d about quality of the city's stree , the council ;ity manager 4iations with I Crestline orts for a center man- it. and Resorts acilities. freezes unts Two bank ardson busi- ozen as the business is 3deral terror- ias told this counts were of a 1993 ,ie wife of a iI leader, an mpany said. wire reports ,or Tuesday: 0 1S 32 34 iii lumbers for Y: (32) Many Bryan residents say street repair is the most critical issue facing the city, though the majority of resi- dents are pleased with the quality of life, according to a consultant's survey presented Tuesday to the City Council. The survey, conducted by the Arling- ton research firm Raymond Turco and Associates, revealed that road improve- ments and traffic congestion were resi- dents' top concern, followed by school issues and crime. The council commissioned Turco to perform the survey in March. The ques- tions addressed city services, quality-of- life issues and general attitudes about Bryan. Ninety-four percent of 400 residents surveyed by phone said they were satis- fied with the quality of life in the d in 1998. Good schools, a small-town a phere and nice people were amon positive aspects of the city cited by dents, just as in the 1998 survey. Twenty-two percent said road qi was the primary problem in B compared to 10 percent who said so School issues were critical to 17 pe of respondents, compared to 10 pe ity, a 3 percent increase since the last survey Some want separation of church, subdivision Residents hope to By CHRISTOPHER FERRELL Eagle Staff Writer Residents of Raintree subd' vision will go before the Co lege Station City Council o Thursday in hopes of keeping driveway at a planned churc from connecting to their neigh borhood. Homeowners in the east Co lege Station subdivision ar appealing an earlier decisio by the city's Planning and Zo ing Commission that A&M Church of Christ can add a sec and driveway to its parking to when it moves to land it ha purchased on Earl Rudde Freeway South. The church, which has 2,17 members, is planning a 1,90( seat auditorium. In addition t( block plans for road Sunday services, A&M Church of Christ would offer activities throughout the week, includ- e ing day care. 1 The public hearing is the n second item of business on the a agenda for the council's regu- h lar meeting, which iS sched- uled to begin at 7 p.m. at Col- lege Station City Hall. 1 Planning and zoning com- e missioners twice heard from n representatives of the church n and Raintree residents after the church petitioned for a building permit from the city. t The permit was granted in s June, with an allowance giving r A&M Church of Christ the right to use Appomattox Drive 8 as a second entry and exit See ROAD, Page All Banned Associated Press rave party It seems in HEMPSTEAD - Dozens of arrests on drug and trespass charges followed a weekend rave party that had been held despite a court order banning it. A prosecutor on Monday filed a con- tempt motion against representatives of the event's promoters, including a Hempstead lawyer, for violating a restraining order issued by a state dis- trict judge. Waller County Judge Glenn Taylor, See SURVEY, Page The sol of a competitor AP pr Jeff Roman, a college student in Midland, takes aim bet serving to his father, Alan, at a junior high school ter court in this West Texas city. ends in arrests omoters ignored court order who has a private law practice in Hempstead, had represented the pro- moters last week in a hearing on the court order to stop the party. About 70 people were arrested in con- nection with drug possession and crimi- nal trespass at the party Saturday that drew as many as 10,000 people to a rural area south of Brookshire, 35 miles west of Houston. District Attorney Sherry Robi said the event, scheduled to start a 2 p.m. Saturday and go all night, ahead as advertised despite the c she had obtained. She requested J Jon Delaney, who issued the orde assess damages against the defen( including costs of policing the even Waller County Sheriff Randy S said about 150 officers from the T See RAVE, Page From A7 point but requiring it to build a buffer zone separating the church from the neighbor- hood. The lot's main driveway will connect to the Earl Rud- der Freeway South feeder road. Raintree's homeowners association appealed the rul- ing in a letter to the city, argu- ing that it violates College Sta- tion's Comprehensive Plan and East Bypass Small Area Plan. The residents were also worried that opening Appo- mattox would pose a safety hazard by allowing nonresi- dential traffic to come into the neighborhood. The subdivi- sion's only access to and from the feeder road is Raintree Drive. Appomattox intersects Raintree to the north and dead ends near the church's prop- erty to the south. The letter was accompanied by the signatures of more than 175 residents. Appomattox was slated to be extended..under-,the.adW scra idea was' months ` befo>rex between Regents From A7 - = life administration building at Texas A&M. Offices for the department are now located in the YMCA Building, which will be closed in 2002 for reno- vations. The $11.3 million facility, which would be locat- ed north of Old Main Drive near Albritton Tower, would contain administrative offices for the Department of Residence Life and space for student activities and support services. Construction is scheduled to begin in January 2003, and the facility would be user-ready in Fall 2004. ■ A $10.7 million biological waste management facility at Texas A&M. The proposed facility would replace an out- dated 25-year-old incinerator. It would use newer technolo- gies to safely dispose of ani- During the planning and zoning meeting, commission- ers expressed concerns that by not granting the building permit or by rejecting plans for the second driveway, the city would be in violation of the Religious Freedom Act, which protects land used for religious exercises. By limiting the church to ing the church use of its prop- erty, said planning Commis- sioner Rick Floyd. The city's legal staff advised that a decision allowing the second driveway could be upheld in court because of the Religious Freedom Act. ■ Christopher Ferrell's e-mail address is cferrell@theeagle.com. TENTS LINENS- TABLES CHINA CHAIRS © © DANCE FLOOR CASINO AND 1 MUCH MORE f Fun! .Convenience Center 1710 S. Texas Ave. * Bryan 979-822-5555 t IY: NCOV'ER YOUR NATURAL RADIANCE 1AMES N. ('iI1LUN, M.D. 1711 MARIA 1'. A)ti, M.D. 696-4444 160.1 HU411 111i'MRIE: RII. SPITE al; CU1.1.1:1:1; til'.\TIU\, 'I'\ i iMJ i 0 1999 CYNOSURE. IN( Anniv4 X111 R VitaMin-A-Day HERE'S e WHAT' S f fi' NEXT. All Natural Factors products are manufactured in Canada under the stringent guidelines of the Canadian Government's GMP (Good Manufacturing Process), among; the highest standards for &Cateer"Se~arat~ w 30% off Leather outerwear wonderful 6.99 Queen or k sheets. Chc flat or fittec in a variety 4.99 Pillo, elsewhere $ S=0 Pnehinn and QL Appeal to City Council To: City Secretary College Station Re: Appomattox opening/A&M Church of Christ Conditional Use Permit The undersigned hereby appeal the decision made by the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission on June 7, 2001 regarding the plan to open Appomattox Drive for use of the A&M Church of Christ. Under the College Station Comprehensive Plan and the East Bypass plan, the following recommendations are noted: 1. Land Use Goal #3 objective 3.1: College Station should continue to protect the integrity of residential areas by minimizing intrusive and incompatible land uses and densities 2. Land Use Goal #8 objective 8.6: College Station should designate the East Bypass from Harvey Road to Graham as a special district to protect existing and future residential developments from adjacent incompatible uses. 3. Transportation Goal #5 objective 5.2: College Station should continue to encourage that new developments be designed to minimize cut-through traffic, especially in residential neighborhoods and pedestrian areas such as Eastgate/College Hills, the East Bypass neighborhoods and Southside. 4. The College Station Staff recommendation was that Appomattox not be opened. It is noted that the role of Appomattox as a "collector" street was deleted from the Thoroughfare Plan by Council action in 1997. We note that the opening of Appomattox to the through traffic created by the A&M Church of Christ will be in violation of all of the above recommendations. It is on the basis of these noted violations that we believe that an injustice has been created, and errors in decision-making were made by the Planning and Zoning Commission as evidenced by the vote to open Appomattox. We also wish to state that we do not object to the presence of A&M Church of Christ at 2475 Earl Rudder. Our objection is to the opening of Appomattox to intrusive mixed traffic. We hereby appeal the decision of the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission to the College Station City Council and ask for reconsideration, namely to eep Appomattox closed to non-residential traffic as per the City of College Station Comprehensive Planand East Bypass Plan. C.' TOn-\ ~m , Appeal Applicants aria Young Raintree Neighborhood Association Officer 2711 Redhill, College Station Rose Lewis Raintree Neighborhood Association Treasurer 7802 Appomattox, College Station Amy Trem y Raintree Neighborhood Association Officer 2715 Wilderness North, College Station Sherry Ellison East Bypass Plan Team Member/Windwood Resident 2705 Brookway Dr., College Station o~. a__ bill East Bypass Plan Team Member/Raintree Resident 09 Savannah Circle, College Station c;~17eph L. B L~ East Bypass Plan Team Member/Windwood Resident 608 Win at C' e, College Station J n Pfannstiel „ d( ~a 1 M ast Bypass Plan Team Member/Emerald Forest 6;Gre nleaf ollege S i n 871 Rntho~yrRee er Raintree Resident Appomattox, College Station Rhon Lo Irc Raintree Resident Appomattox, College Station PF~+nns~~ Resident era oop Raintree Resident llege Station Wand Ridge, Co ends Baker AX East Bypass Plan Team Members/Raintree Residents 2806 Manassas, College Station PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: 25o& - x.501 5w7JLby-, a_- ~w^4 T"2 25oq Su-frtv-~t ~a r l VeJ A 2-G ~Zs/c/ off- u rrt~~ Oo,j~ M r-~aStied 251D'b ofoc~ fYJ1V6-, (0c13-2-:-7 12- (_0 9 t..0 c~Ol Sa 4914 I ~G Sl5 r7(-,q ~ /J, -7& 9o qo Asia Oel~ ~v 1s a PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: U ! ".q A 0~a~ ~ 70, ~a X03 4paAP, 6 'QQintree, -wVPJ `7907 ox 0+~ 100 GCS / o... C7`o --1-7(L( ~f~~ o ck Dv., 6D pv~►a r~tt o~ (n oc~ Qf-,, V-)ev tc Y 4 CT P 9 GO G CU-m b ,1 ar,d Cf mol ~aeis a~01 f PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: Jul/; ll~ ago (~c~ ~f - 2.550 5 I PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: 7701 (SF-- If-, 6T 13 Awle,11 11v G~ 0-bl She-(moo Y Skuma,, ct- - 77 0 if' sx P, R m.4w Gr - 7os S A~ev~'c^ c o, PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: Oi & e itz~, Inc :r C4r,y cN-~ 44,"A-0-- cr 9'14' TOZLA) C0,1451013 I~ -mac ~r~ir~ c~ 1( - 1(o7 f 2 7oZ l✓, kOU~ S Al 6 95-9826 z&O,IlWl/de,7,ess 7)r. 6W-9776 Z ~b Z Uj f )l IJ ~G ~ -5-1 2 -1 d3--~,761. L) kA/; I ~e(tiess /Vs,/t'k 2-103 ~~oc U) ud!x D/0 F,)J 02~~ W.Id~rwess D- ~ -6 ~ 733z q 9 d8 r~- v y"s55~ 76 aaoN as% Cj:• ~u ~rnan n -7(0y17 1v~3- I -T (T 7l~ 7741 PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: (yLw.li y4"'All 46 5-0 6 /t11071t 2 C -7 6 S a C 16 - x'.,25=8 -76, q-- / S- T 5~ey ~ - L 6'9 y -6 s',P e7 575 5q W a~ 3 b /Vl PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: /~K -2308 p i - - „ J k! c~0l /YW-Au/,-Y, .C tj ,Zq, SOS - ~V5//e t 45~ / Orrrm& zS-6 -7 -7 ~4 0 I7YYY 5 vto,,, ~~b asp 77~~ 7 2880 ~.w~_ Gtr J e 2 „~-•f i / /y76:"C., ^4+ e, ? 1 9)x45 U PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: i Man as-!ga -s ~sCU n-- 9) 7&/~ - 9690 es ~ 2t6o \ mcviAs- m C.S . hCM C Dees lei G cS cl. 2&0 Q p ' tM 117 p g© ~ sS C C S C f( 1. 1-11 1-0 PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the a 'o' ing pro erty: C Qado M"4*,A__ KO PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: -Co e~ PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: 2 3 op F-c~,~..t ~P e L, L ~N KN O-r~- M 'C ij c ;2~-rTA VAwe SR'~ ~r eft Fe-1 1 ~7Zk v~ PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: ~7,lic ~5 t ~ Q~ Goy Ch o~ a ~{ob KoCtn . M (a-1 ~~w Tyb-y'~ / t zv_x~~ lzdltol~ 6aG U.~~s~~• CT goo PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: PETITION As a resident of the Raintree subdivision, I oppose opening/extending Appomattox to the south for access to the adjoining property: /-Z 6-o 7 G` ~ p,,,l a~ ~,~v►no~o astir oMCkotah Dear Commissioners, Attached to this letter is a petition signed by residents of Raintree subdivision who oppose the opening of Appomattox to the South. There is a great amount of concern, even though it might have not been as evident at the first meeting on May 17th where the A&M Church of Christ's request for a conditional use permit was tabled. The church mentioned at that May 17th public hearing for this issue that there was a low turnout at the meeting they had for us neighbors to show us their plan and answer questions. This low turnout was due to the fact that Mr. Duncum called me the afternoon of the meeting and asked to change the time from 7:00 to 5:30. I was not able to notify everyone in the neighborhood about this change. Under usual circumstances, the contact person for the Neighborhood Association is notified of the public hearings affecting their areas, in addition to the 200ft notification list, but for this past meeting the Raintree Neighborhood Association was left off the list. I, as the contact person, did not know about the Public Hearing until 3 days before, and though I did my best to get the word out, it was not possible to notify all 283 homes in the neighborhood. I did, however, receive notification about this June 7th meeting, and though I am not able to attend, wanted the Commission know that there is a large amount of concern over this issue and we managed to get petitions down most streets over the past week to show the level of concern and opposition to opening Appomattox. There were several streets that we just didn't have time to cover, but for the streets that our neighbors did cover everyone signed in opposition (other than the people that were not home). There was not one person that I know of that was in agreement with opening Appomattox. There are signatures from 121 homes out of a total of 283 in the neighborhood (a total of 160 individual signatures). Those that did not sign were not home or able to be contacted. We have many concerns about the opening of Appomattox including the following: The East Bypass Plan stresses preserving the nature and integrity of existing neighborhoods. We feel this plan to open Appomattox will compromise both the nature and integrity of Raintree. Those of us that served on the East Bypass Planning Team feel very strongly about this issue and those feelings steered a majority of our decisions about the plan. All church members (1200 members now, with estimated future membership of 2000) entering from the north or west would use Appomattox to avoid going to Emerald Parkway and back. Note that the Emerald Parkway route does have an easy U-turn lane. The big turn on Raintree Drive means people leaving lower Raintree might not see the congestion in time (might this require a future stoplight at Appomattox?). Residents on Appomattox all said they moved there because of the quiet neighborhood. Opening Appomattox forces a major change in neighborhood lifestyle. Because of the plan for various schools (a 2-day preschool is already in operation) and activities at the church, dense traffic will occur more often than just Wednesdays and Sundays. Other churches in this area have not needed access to local neighborhoods. (Why not add a stoplight and/or a turn lane at the frontage road entrance?) While most Raintree residents view the church as a desirable neighbor, most do not want Appomattox opened. "Good fences make good neighbors." Concerns about where the overflow parking would be during big events that draw church members as well as guests are prevalent among those living adjacent to the property. That overflow is not likely to be out on the bypass, but along Appomattox and Raintree Drive. Is the planned parking (600 spaces) enough to handle such events and standard church services when full? We respectively submit these concerns and petitions opposing the opening of Appomattox. Thank you for your time and consideration. Carla Young Co-President, Raintree Neighborhood Association 2711 Redhill College Station, TX 77845 693-2757