The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-00500107- 00073353ASH & BROWNE ENGINEERING, INC. Engineers and consultants P.O. Boa 10838, College Station, Texas 77842 979-846-6914 877-245-4839 Fax: 979-846-8914 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO: Bridgette George Asst. Development Coordinator City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone: 979-764-3570 Fax: 979-764-3496 DATE: May 24, 2002 RE: University Preserve Subdivision ABEI No.: 1042001 ATTACH. DESCRIPTION 1 Re-Plat Application 2 Check for $1,000.00 for fees. ✓ 3 13 copies of the Replat for University Preserve Subdivision 4 1 copy of the Preliminary Plat 5 Paid Tax Certificates - 6 Copy of completed checklist 7 2 sets of Construction Drawings 8 2 Copies of the Design Report (Drainage & Water) r✓ THESE ARE BEING SENT: ❑ At your request ❑ For your signature ❑ For your approval ❑ For ❑ For your information ❑ Per our conversation ❑ For further action as noted ❑ Per contract ❑ For review and comment ❑ For your use ❑ At request of ❑ Original will follow by mail REMARKS: If you have any questions, please call. Copy to: Signed: JoWlJ Gattis, E.I.T. F kProjects\1042 - Switzer Deason\001 -12 Acre Subdivision\Letters\COCS - Macik02 - TLetter.wpd DEASON.BUSINESS.OFFICE TEL:1-0-54-780-9975 ~1ay 13..,.02 SWITZER L. DEASON h~ 302 ARROWHEAD POINT RD. y l " BELTON. TUXAi 765 t 9 t~YISFU VOICC:.254.780.1 100 - PAx. 254.780.9975 F A C S I M I L L T R A N S M IS S I O N TO: Natalie Ruiz a 13'18 No.00E P.01 FAX: 979.764.3496 DATE: May 13, 2002 VOICE: 979.76 .3570 RE: UniveraitxPreserve Subdivision Prclimanazy Plat Approval March 2I, 2002 1 called earlier hoping to visit with either of you by phone to seek wiy input you might be able to offer regarding topics we should be prepared to present or respond to at the June 201h P&Z Commission Meeting whoi Elie subject plat is presented for Final Approval. I know you guys have really time-compressed schedules, and rather than continuing to bother you with "phone tag", l thought it might be helpful to give you something in writing concerning the purpose of my phone call. Attached is an email from Bob Jones following his meeting with City Stall', in which he cautions hunt the City's "current procese does not give you a, fair assessment of what might happen at the next 1'&Z meeting 1 will be engaged with the rity .r1g9 between now and the time your final plat is considered to be sure that the traffic concerns I addressed during the preliminary plat pror:ess are properly evaluated before final plat approval." Prior to scheduling his meeting with City Staff, Mr. Jones invited me to join him; but as you may know, I was in Houston the day of the meeting while my wife was having heart surgery, and I was unable to atWnd. I asked Dale Browne, the engineer on the project, to go in my place; but the c :ity Manager advised Dale on his arrival at the meeting location that he could not attend. As a result, the only input I have regarding what was diseusseA and/or decided at the City's private mcctuig with Mr. Jones is the: above "caution". It has been more than a month since receiviiig Mr. Jones' "caution"; and while my usual modus operandi is not to allow myself to be prompted to enter a manner iii which I have not been invited, I thought it may be prudent to at least inquire to see if there is any special information, legal issues, or engineering studies we should be prepared to present or respond to at the June 20ih P&Z Meeting when our plat is presented for fuial approval. I have engaged two local attorneys to handle the usual (non-litigation) legal work associated with the development of the subdivision (Cully Lipsey and Chuck Ellison both of whom are long-tune friends); but my understanding is that Mr. Jones brought an attorney to the meeting with City Staff who is an expert in the legal dimensions of the issues interjected by Mr..Zones - raising concern that technical legal issues might be raised at the June 20'h P&Z Meeting (by the City or by W. Jones' attorney) Ihat we should be prepared to address. Having no information on what was discussed or decided by City Staff at its private meeting with. Mr. Jones, the purpose of my telcphonc call is just to inquire (on an after-the-fact hacic) to sere if there is anything we should be prepared to discuss or present at the June 20'h meeting in connection with issues the City hac discussed, or perhaps is continuing to discuss, with Mr. Jones concerning final approval of the subject plat. You can reach me at any time on my local-dial cell phone (575.6248); and I also will be in Colleges Station for the remainder of this week (I uesday - Friday), should you want me to stop by to meet in person. DEASON.EUSINESS.OFFICE TEL:1-254-7H-9975 May 13,02 13'19 No.006 P.02 . Page I of 2 A Switzor Doason From: `'BobJones" <BobJones(Wjone8c9rter.com> To: "'awltzordoasonOmen.com"' <3w1tzordca3onQmsn.oom> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 11;46 AM Subject: University Preserve Switzer-- I met with the City Manager and several of his staff people yesterday to discuss the items in my letter to him (which 1 previously forwarded to you). T)te City Attorney advised tncduring the inecting that they slid nut have to hold the hearing that P&Z conducted with your preliminary plat--that hearing; was extra. They further advised me that the official hearing for Chapter 212,015 will be held with your FINAL plat and the city can change its approval at that time. I strongly encouraged the City to contact you to let you know how it apparently, routinely conducts its business. While I disagree with your pmPnCe.d connection to Mum-on, I also think the current Process does not give you a fair assessment of what might happen at the next P&Z meeting. I discussed at length the inequity of the system in the way the initial meeting was conducted and the advice that both Ms. Jimerson and Ms. Hemcik gave to planning commission. 1 was advised that contrary to my understanding of the process, the process is not over with preliminary, it has just started. I will be engaged with the city staff between now and the time your final plat is considered to he cnre. Ihal the traffic concerns I addressed during the preliminary plat process arc properly evahwed before final plat !approval. tris any opinion that the traffic froth your proposed dcvclL)PILIC[It `will have significant impact to Munson residents, with little or no negative impact to the three parties that are subdividing their property. The proper place for your development to gain access is via Dominik. If die Walton 's am not interested in sulliay_ I would encourage you to try to work something out with the two land owners that arc cast of the Waltons. If they knew you were planning to install a brick entrance fence and wood fencing along their back property and that you paid them for their land, you might find someone willing to sell to you. J.R. (Bob) Jones, P.E. [mai Ito:hohj onesLjonescftrter,cam] Joncs & Carter, Inc. Consulting Engineers 6335 Oulftnn Houston. TX 77081 4/12/02 ASH & BROWNE ENGINEERING, INC. Engineers and Consultants P.O. Bog 10838, College Station, Texas 77842 979-846-6914 877-2454839 Fax: 979-846-8914 July 2, 2002 Natalie Ruiz /t Development Coordinator I Development Services U City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 m College Station, Texas 77842 U Re.: University Preserve Subdivision Street Maintenance Funds ABEI No. 1042001 Dear Natalie: At the request of Mr. Deason, I am writing you this letter regarding the street maintenance funds for the above referenced subdivision. After speaking with street superintendents from the City of College Station and the City of Huntsville, it has been determined that annual costs of maintaining- streets ranges from $719 to $386 per lane-mile, respectively. A lane-mile is a 12' wide travel lane for a distance of 5,280 feet. Since these numbers are based upon large quantities of streets being maintained, a factor of 10 will be applied to the calculated annual maintenance costs to adjust for the minimal quantity of lane-miles within this subdivision. Therefore, the total lane-miles within the University Preserve Subdivision is approximately 0.36 lane-miles. The projected maintenance fund needed to maintain the streets within this subdivision for a two year period (i.e. based on the College Station maintenance costs) is approximately $5,176.00. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASH ROW NE EN NEER G, INC. J ale Browne, Jr., P.E. cc: Switzer Deason, Crux Financial Services \\AbeWM0FFICEIProjects\1042 - Switzer Deason\001 -12 Acre Subdivision\Letters\COCS - Ruiz04 - Letter.wpd v.2 -/v7 Y 10 1 MARSTELL,ER AVENUE FIL E COP COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 June 20,2002 Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: I am writing this letter as a private citizen but also as the president of the College Woodland Hills Neighborhood Association to request that you reject approval of the final plat request for 1205, 1207, and 1209 Munson Avenue until the existing Munson traffic problem is addressed. There are currently more than 4300 cars traveling the portion of Munson from Dominik Drive to Francis Drive; the number proceeding from Francis to Lincoln Avenue is higher still. This heavy traffic travels on a street designed for no more than 1000 cars per day. The planned development of University Preserve will increase this number substantially. Having only one point of egress, Munson, means that all of the additional neighborhood-based traffic generated by this development will flow onto a street that is already carrying more than four times its design capacity. Thus, although the planned development appears to be high-quality, and, in and of itself, should not produce a negative impact on the neighborhood (after construction is completed), it would be unwise to proceed with this or any other development until plans to deal with the traffic problem that already exists are developed. Dealing with neighborhood issues in isolation is a strategy that will almost surely lead to neighborhood degradation. In fact, the relationship between increased development and additional traffic is one of the more obvious interactions that we all understand. Sincerely, Sarah Witham Bednarz Jul 03 02 11:13a Fish & Browne 979 846 Y914 P.1 Y N _ ASH & BROWNE ENGINEERING, INC. Engineers and Consultants P.O. Boa 10838, College Station, Texas 77842 979-846-6914 877-2454839 Fax: 979-846-8914 FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: Natalie Ruiz DATE: July 3, 2002 Development Coordinator City of College Station RE: University Preserve P.O. Box 9960 Subdivision College Station, Texas 77842 Phone: 979-764-3570 ABET No.: 1042001 Fax: 979-764-3496 PAGES DESCRIPTION THESE ARE BEING SENT: ❑ At your request ❑ For your information ❑ Per our conversation ❑ For your signature ❑ At request of _Switzer Deason_ ❑ For further action as noted ❑ Per contract ❑ For your approval ❑ For review and comment o For your use ❑ For ❑ Original will follow by mail TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 2 REMARKS: Copy to: Chuck Ellison Signed: ~'A~r Lacey In elmann CAOfficelTemplateslTemplate - Transmittal Fax.wpd Tuesday, February 1, 2000, 4:26 PM Jul 03 02 11:14a Ash a Browne 979 846 8914 p.2 ASH & BROWNE ENGINEERING, INC. Engineers and Consultants P.O. Box 10838, College Station, Texas 77842 979-846-6914 877-2454839 Fax: 979-846-8914 July 2, 2002 Natalie Ruiz Development Coordinator Development Services City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re.: University Preserve Subdivision Street Maintenance Funds ABEI No. 1042001 Dear Natalie: At the request of Mr. Deason, I am writing you this letter regarding the street maintenance funds for the above referenced subdivision. After speaking with street superintendents from the City of College Station and the City of Huntsville, it has been determined that annual costs of maintaining streets ranges from $719 to $386 per lane-mile, respectively. A lane-mile is a 12' wide travel lane for a distance of 5,280 feet. Since these numbers are based upon large quantities of streets being maintained, a factor of 10 will be applied to the calculated annual maintenance costs to adjust for the minimal quantity of lane-miles within this subdivision. Therefore, the total lane-miles within the University Preserve Subdivision is approximately 0.36 lane-miles. The projected maintenance fund needed to maintain the streets within this subdivision for a two year period (i.e. based on the College Station maintenance costs) is approximately $5,176.00. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, OF 7E ASH ROW E EN NEER NG, INC. J DALE BROWNE, JR. r... J ale Browne, Jr., P.E. Its-'.• 81890 X44% le0~c 9FGlSTER~~~~~~5 cc: Switzer Deason, Crux Financial Services t s v l XA O"wEN 11 Abei#6k0FFICE1Projects11042 - Switzer Deason1001 -12 Acre Subdivision'LettersICOCS - Ruiz04 - Letter.wpd AsH & BRowNE EI GiNEERIIYG, IIYC. 0-c-~- -1O-7 En&"rs and consultants P.O. Boa 10838, College Station, Texas 77842 979-846-6914 877-245-4839 Fax: 979-846-8914 June 11, 2002 Spencer Thompson, E. I. T. Graduate Engineer City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re.: University Preserve Subdivision Impact Analysis on Existing Wastewater System ABEI No. 1042001 Dear Spencer: As per your request, I have analyzed the impact the above referenced development on the existing downstream wastewater. Please find attached a map that shows the wastewater drainage basins that will be impacted by the proposed development. I have looked at the impact on the existing 6"o and 8"o wastewater lines downstream. The worst locations where the 6",a and 8"o wastewater lines will be impacted is at Point-of-Interest (POI) #1 and #2, respectively. At POI #1 and #2, the total number of residences contributing to these points is 63 and 67, respectively. The flowing full capacity of a 6"es wastewater line is 178 g.p.m. with n = 0.013 and slope = 0.50%. The estimated peak flow at POI #1 is as follows: (63 residences + 24 residences) x 3 persons/residences = 261 people 261 people x 100 gallons per persons = 26,100 gpd - 18.1 g.p.m. 18.1 g. p. m. x 4 (peaking factor) = 72.4 g. p. m. << 178 g. p. m. Therefore, the proposed development will have little impact on the existing 6"0 wastewater main. \Wbed00FFICE1Projects\1042 - Switzer Deason\001 -12 Acre SubdivisionLLettersNCOCS - Thompson0l - Letter.wpd Spencer Thompson, E. I.T. June 11, 2002 Page 2 The flowing full capacity of a 8"o wastewater line is 312 g.p.m., with n = 0.013 and slope = 0.33%. The estimated peak flow at POI #1 is as follows: (130 residences + 24 residences) x 3 persons/residences = 462 people 462 people x 100 gallons per persons = 46,200 gpd - 32.1 g. p.m. 32.1 g.p.m. x 4 (peaking factor) = 128.4 g.p.m. << 312 g.p.m. Therefore, the proposed developmentwill have little impact on the existing 8"o wastewater main. If you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASH BR WN Dale Browne, Jr Attachment ENGINEERING, INC. P. E. ..•~P•(E OF - rkE s~.•••• • •.:~s~~ J. •DALE BROWNE . . 81890 . Ave ~Q/ f t`~s OI►iA~ E~Ge~~~~. %AbeWOOFFICEVProjects\1042 - Switzer Deasont001 -12 Acre Subdivision\LettersNCOCS - ThompsonOl - Letter.wpd City of College Station Development Services Department Facsimile To: Switzer Of: From: Kelly Templin Fax#: 774-1156 Date: 13 March 2003 Pages: 2 RE: "Block" Definitions The attached page is what we relied upon. It was taken from A Glossary of Zoning, Development, and Planning Terms edited by Davidson and Dolnick and published by the American Planning Association (APA). 979/764-3570 facsimile: 979/764-3496 June 18, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue Post Office Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Protest University Preserve Subdivision (A Replat of a Portion of Woodland Estates) Commissioners: In accordance with Chapter 212.015 of the Local Government Code, we the undersigned are all owners of land immediately adjacent to the proposed replat. The plat does not meet current rules and would need variances to the College Station Subdivision Regulations and the College Station Development Guidelines. We are opposed to any variances and protest the approval of this plat on the following basis: The proposed replat does not conform to the College Station Subdivision Regulations. Specifically, the replat contains 24 lots that adjoin the proposed private Lyceum Drive, plus a large common area that appears to be an additional lot, plus the Albert Casey lot that is not included in the replat area for a total of 25 or 26 lots. Subdivision Regulation 8-G.6 Cul-de-Sacs, limits this type of dead-end street to no more than 24 lots. 2. Texas Local Government Code, 212.010, Standards for Approval requires approval of a plat only if it conforms to the general plan of the city and its current and future streets. The proposed replat does not conform to the City of College Station Development Guidelines. Specifically, the proposed replat will create significant traffic problems on Munson Avenue that drastically exceed the current traffic loading and volume loading guidelines contained in both the Development Guidelines and the Subdivision Regulations. The Street Design Criteria shows that a residential street should carry between 200 and 1,000 cars per day. Munson well exceeds these limits. Name Address ~4~ 0e -44 /i o/ IKcws k-lfe,/ Ac - -7 WD e.5rl~N~u} P Cvll~ l/►//s GWd00%~ S /~oM'P INeiyl><~ar~~/J f~ss~ June 18, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue Post Office Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Protest University Preserve Subdivision (A Replat of a Portion of Woodland Estates) Commissioners: In accordance with Chapter 212.015 of the Local Government Code, we the undersigned are all owners of land immediately adjacent to the proposed replat. The plat does not meet current rules and would need variances to the College Station Subdivision Regulations and the College Station Development Guidelines. We are opposed to any variances and protest the approval of this plat on the following basis: The proposed replat does not conform to the College Station Subdivision Regulations. Specifically, the replat contains 24 lots that adjoin the proposed private Lyceum Drive, plus a large common area that appears to be an additional lot, plus the Albert Casey lot that is not included in the replat area for a total of 25 or 26 lots. Subdivision Regulation 8-G.6 Cul-de-Sacs, limits this type of dead-end street to no more than 24 lots. 2. Texas Local Government Code, 212.010, Standards for Approval requires approval of a plat only if it conforms to the general plan of the city and its current and future streets. The proposed replat does not conform to the City of College Station Development Guidelines. Specifically, the proposed replat will create significant traffic problems on Munson Avenue that drastically exceed the current traffic loading and volume loading guidelines contained in both the Development Guidelines and the Subdivision Regulations. The Street Design Criteria shows that a residential street should carry between 200 and 1,000 cars per day. Munson well exceeds these limits. Name Address June 18, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue Post Office Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Protest University Preserve Subdivision (A Replat of a Portion of Woodland Estates) Commissioners: In accordance with Chapter 212.015 of the Local Government Code, we the undersigned are all owners of land immediately adjacent to the proposed replat. The plat does not meet current rules and would need variances to the College Station Subdivision Regulations and the College Station Development Guidelines. We are opposed to any variances and protest the approval of this plat on the following basis: The proposed replat does not conform to the College Station Subdivision Regulations. Specifically, the replat contains 24 lots that adjoin the proposed private Lyceum Drive, plus a large common area that appears to be an additional lot, plus the Albert Casey lot that is not included in the replat area for a total of 25 or 26 lots. Subdivision Regulation 8-G.6 Cul-de-Sacs, limits this type of dead-end street to no more than 24 lots. 2. Texas Local Government Code, 212.010, Standards for Approval requires approval of a plat only if it conforms to the general plan of the city and its current and future streets. The proposed replat does not conform to the City of College Station Development Guidelines. Specifically, the proposed replat will create significant traffic problems on Munson Avenue that drastically exceed the current traffic loading and volume loading guidelines contained in both the Development Guidelines and the Subdivision Regulations. The Street Design Criteria shows that a residential street should carry between 200 and 1,000 cars per day. Munson well exceeds these limits. Name Address Ci fY~N~Sa+v June 18, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue Post Office Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Protest University Preserve Subdivision (A Replat of a Portion of Woodland Estates) Commissioners: In accordance with Chapter 212.015 of the Local Government Code, we the undersigned are all owners of land immediately adjacent to the proposed replat. The plat does not meet current rules and would need variances to the College Station Subdivision Regulations and the College Station Development Guidelines. We are opposed to any variances and protest the approval of this plat on the following basis: The proposed replat does not conform to the College Station Subdivision Regulations. Specifically, the replat contains 24 lots that adjoin the proposed private Lyceum Drive, plus a large common area that appears to be an additional lot, plus the Albert Casey lot that is not included in the replat area for a total of 25 or 26 lots. Subdivision Regulation 8-G.6 Cul-de-Sacs, limits this type of dead-end street to no more than 24 lots. 2. Texas Local Government Code, 212.010, Standards for Approval requires approval of a plat only if it conforms to the general plan of the city and its current and future streets. The proposed replat does not conform to the City of College Station Development Guidelines. Specifically, the proposed replat will create significant traffic problems on Munson Avenue that drastically exceed the current traffic loading and volume loading guidelines contained in both the Development Guidelines and the Subdivision Regulations. The Street Design Criteria shows that a residential street should carry between 200 and 1,000 cars per day. Munson well exceeds these limits. Name Address June 18, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue Post Office Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Protest University Preserve Subdivision (A Replat of a Portion of Woodland Estates) Commissioners: In accordance with Chapter 212.015 of the Local Government Code, we the undersigned are all owners of land immediately adjacent to the proposed replat. The plat does not meet current rules and would need variances to the College Station Subdivision Regulations and the College Station Development Guidelines. We are opposed to any variances and protest the approval of this plat on the following basis: The proposed replat does not conform to the College Station Subdivision Regulations. Specifically, the replat contains 24 lots that adjoin the proposed private Lyceum Drive, plus a large common area that appears to be an additional lot, plus the Albert Casey lot that is not included in the replat area for a total of 25 or 26 lots. Subdivision Regulation 8-G.6 Cul-de-Sacs, limits this type of dead-end street to no more than 24 lots. 2. Texas Local Government Code, 212.010, Standards for Approval requires approval of a plat only if it conforms to the general plan of the city and its current and future streets. The proposed replat does not conform to the City of College Station Development Guidelines. Specifically, the proposed replat will create significant traffic problems on Munson Avenue that drastically exceed the current traffic loading and volume loading guidelines contained in both the Development Guidelines and the Subdivision Regulations. The Street Design Criteria shows that a residential street should carry between 200 and 1,000 cars per day. Munson well exceeds these limits. Name Address ~71SL~Yl, lvcu June 18, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue Post Office Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Protest University Preserve Subdivision (A Replat of a Portion of Woodland Estates) Commissioners: In accordance with Chapter 212.015 of the Local Government Code, we the undersigned are all owners of land immediately adjacent to the proposed replat. The plat does not meet current rules and would need variances to the College Station Subdivision Regulations and the College Station Development Guidelines. We are opposed to any variances and protest the approval of this plat on the following basis: The proposed replat does not conform to the College Station Subdivision Regulations. Specifically, the replat contains 24 lots that adjoin the proposed private Lyceum Drive, plus a large common area that appears to be an additional lot, plus the Albert Casey lot that is not included in the replat area for a total of 25 or 26 lots. Subdivision Regulation 8-G.6 Cul-de-Sacs, limits this type of dead-end street to no more than 24 lots. Texas Local Government Code, 212.010, Standards for Approval requires approval of a plat only if it conforms to the general plan of the city and its current and future streets. The proposed replat does not conform to the City of College Station Development Guidelines. Specifically, the proposed replat will create significant traffic problems on Munson Avenue that drastically exceed the current traffic loading and volume loading guidelines contained in both the Development Guidelines and the Subdivision Regulations. The Street Design Criteria shows that a residential street should carry between 200 and 1,000 cars per day. Munson well exceeds these limits. Address June 18, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue Post Office Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Protest University Preserve Subdivision (A Replat of a Portion of Woodland Estates) Commissioners: In accordance with Chapter 212.015 of the Local Government Code, we the undersigned are all owners of land immediately adjacent to the proposed replat. The plat does not meet current rules and would need variances to the College Station Subdivision Regulations and the College Station Development Guidelines. We are opposed to any variances and protest the approval of this plat on the following basis: The proposed replat does not conform to the College Station Subdivision Regulations. Specifically, the replat contains 24 lots that adjoin the proposed private Lyceum Drive, plus a large common area that appears to be an additional lot, plus the Albert Casey lot that is not included in the replat area for a total of 25 or 26 lots. Subdivision Regulation 8-G.6 Cul-de-Sacs, limits this type of dead-end street to no more than 24 lots. 2. Texas Local Government Code, 212.010, Standards for Approval requires approval of a plat only if it conforms to the general plan of the city and its current and future streets. The proposed replat does not conform to the City of College Station Development Guidelines. Specifically, the proposed replat will create significant traffic problems on Munson Avenue that drastically exceed the current traffic loading and volume loading guidelines contained in both the Development Guidelines and the Subdivision Regulations. The Street Design Criteria shows that a residential street should carry between 200 and 1,000 cars per day. Munson well exceeds these limits. Name Address 1 2 1 ~ ~V) ~SOII~ June 18, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue Post Office Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Protest University Preserve Subdivision (A Replat of a Portion of Woodland Estates) Commissioners: In accordance with Chapter 212.015 of the Local Government Code, we the undersigned are all owners of land immediately adjacent to the proposed replat. The plat does not meet current rules and would need variances to the College Station Subdivision Regulations and the College Station Development Guidelines. We are opposed to any variances and protest the approval of this plat on the following basis: The proposed replat does not conform to the College Station Subdivision Regulations. Specifically, the replat contains 24 lots that adjoin the proposed private Lyceum Drive, plus a large common area that appears to be an additional lot, plus the Albert Casey lot that is not included in the replat area for a total of 25 or 26 lots. Subdivision Regulation 8-G.6 Cul-de-Sacs, limits this type of dead-end street to no more than 24 lots. 2. Texas Local Government Code, 212.010, Standards for Approval requires approval of a plat only if it conforms to the general plan of the city and its current and future streets. The proposed replat does not conform to the City of College Station Development Guidelines. Specifically, the proposed replat will create significant traffic problems on Munson Avenue that drastically exceed the current traffic loading and volume loading guidelines contained in both the Development Guidelines and the Subdivision Regulations. The Street Design Criteria shows that a residential street should carry between 200 and 1,000 cars per day. Munson well exceeds these limits. Name Address v",NIVER S ITY t RESERVE College Station, Texas 12 wooded acres of 4 estate home sites in a private gated community in one of College Sta ion's oldest and most established neighborhoods Pre-Grand Opening Preview June 1, 2002 - July 15, 2002 St. Joseph Hospital UNIVERSITY DR. (HWY 60) Scott m Texas A$M & White :~i: University LINCOLN DR. UNIVERSITY LL * PRESERVE o GEORGE BUSH DR. Z i DOMINICK DR. o w Z U) Z W Q W College Station a HARVEY ROAD (HWY 30) Medical Center W Post Oak Mall ❑ Close proximity to prime shopping areas, restaurants, physician offices, community activities, cultural functions, hospitals, and public services Location! ❑ Gated security, estate size lots, choice of lot size, exquisite perimeter fencing, underground utilities, elegant landscaping, and common area maintenance ❑ Nearer the things you want to do and closer to the people you want to do them with ❑ Design a home with your architect for construction by the builder of your choice ❑ Probably the last of such home sites available in the Heart of Aggieland ❑ Walking distance to the Main Gate of Texas A & M University For more information or an appointment Voice: 979-774-1155 • Fax: 979-774-1156 • Web: UniversityPreserve.com This does not constitute an offer. Void where prohibited by law. Please obtain property report required by Federal Law and read it before signing anything. No Federal agency has judged the merits or value, if any, of this property. The G of Col e e Station Texas 9 Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 (979) 764-3500 July 2, 2002 www.ci.college-station.tx.us Switzer Deason Crux Financial Services, Inc. 502 Arrowhead Point Road Belton, Texas 76513 Re: University Preserve Subdivision approved by P&Z on July 1, 2002. Dear Switzer, The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the final plat for the University Preserve Subdivision was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on Monday, July 1, 2002. The subdivision is for a gated community with 26 lots on 14.009 acres along Munson Avenue. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (409) 764-3570. Ruiz Development cc: Case File #02-107 Home of Texas A&M University ~/cam ASH & BI OWNE ENGINEERING, INC. 0,;~ - I 0 ~ Englneerl s and Consultants P.O. Boa 10838, College Station, Texas 77842 979-846-6914 877-245-4839 Fax: 979-846-8914 June 11, 2002 Bridgette George Asst. Development Coordinator City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re.: University Preserve Subdivision COCS No. 02-00500107 ABEI No. 1042001 Dear Ms. George: This letter is in response to staff review comments for the above referenced project. The numbered comments below correspond to the staff review comments. ENGINEERING (Spencer Thompson) 1. Response: No response. 2. Response: The construction drawings have been revised. Spencer has indicated that since the correction is minor, a full set of revised construction drawings did not have to be submitted until approval of replat, at which time I will provide mylars for the City's approval. 3. Response: Please find two (2) copies of the revised pages of the Drainage Report that are to replace the typos on Attachment 1.4 and the certificate page. As requested by Spencer, I have also attached a letter regarding the impact of this development on the existing wastewater system. Please find attached ten (10) copies of the replat for the above referenced project as requested. If you or any staff member has a question or needs any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ASH & BROWNE ENGINEERING, INC J. le Browne, Jr., E. Attachments of rF, s : J..DALE BROWNE, JR. 81890 •.•.R~ IVA1. E~ 11AbeW(A0FFICE\Projects\1042 - Switzer Deason\001 -12 Acre Subdivision\Letters\COCS - George02 - Letter.wpd i 11/12/2002 04:13 9797741156 UNIVERSITY PRESERVE. PAGE 01 SwnzF.R L. REASON CRUX FINANCIAL, SIMM ICS INC. - UmmRSrrY PRKsiKRvz 2706 PointuRwr - BRYAN, TBXI►s 7-MO2 YacW 079.774.11 S5 - FA= 970.774.1156 F A C S I M I L E T R A N S MI S S I ON TO: Spencer Thompson FAX: 979.764.3496 DATE: ovember 12, 2002 IN VOICE: 979.764.6221 Letter of Completion for University Preserve Subdivision forwarded herewith. Switzer 40 1-03; 9:39AM;SGRM ArlingtOn Larry L. Fowler (817) 299-2841 VIA TELEFAX 979-764-3481 Harvey Cargill, Jr. City Attorney's Office City of Cvllege Station, Texas P. 0. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 December 1, 2003 Re: Crux Financial Services, Inc. Dear Mr. Cargill: Ifowler@shannongracey.com 14623-1 Thank you for your prompt response to my letter of November 24, 2003. As of the present time, there has only been one letter sent to the City regarding this matter. That was the letter of September 12, 2003. I was under the apparently mistaken belief that the letter was sent to you in addition to Mr. Brymer. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information along with the attachments. I am also forwarding one additional document which is a fax from the City Secretary to my client's engineer. As you can see from reviewing that fax, the City Secretary is forwarding to the engineer on January 4, 2002, a copy of the regulations which it represented were in force at that time. After you have had the opportunity to review this information, please contact me so we may discuss this matter. LLF/sgb Enclosure c: Switzer L. Deason 8177954864 # LAW OFFICES SHANNON, GRACEY, RATLIFF & MILLER, L.L.P. 1000 Ballpark Way, Suite 300 Arlington, Texas 76011 (817)795-4866 Telecopier (817)795-4864 Sincerely, ;arr Fowler 1-03; 9=39AM;SGRM Arlington ;8177954864 u LAW OFFICES SHANNON, GRACEY, RATLIFF & MILLER, L.L.P. 1000 Ballpark Way, Suite 300 Arlington, Texas 76011 (817)795-4866 Telecopier (817)795-4864 Larry L. Fowler (817) 299-2841 Ifowler@shannongracey.com 14623-1 September 12, 2003 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Tom Brymer City Manager - City of College Station, Texas P. 0. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842-9960 Re: Crux Financial Services, Inc. Proposed Development of Approximately 14 Acres on Property Located in College Station, Texas - University Preserve Subdivision Dear Mr. Brymer: This office represents Crux Financial Services, Inc. ("Crux"). I am contacting you regarding various efforts Crux has made with regard to development of certain real property it owns in College Station, Texas. The principal of Crux is Switzer L. Deason. Mr. Deason is the individual who has been in contact with the City regarding this issue. The central issue with regard to the property is that Crux desires to plat and develop the property with lots which have a minimum lot width less than the City contends is allowed by its current zoning ordinances. Specifically, the ordinance in question was adopted by the City Council on January 24, 2002. The ordinance purports to amend Section 18 of Chapter 9, Subdivisions, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, related to the platting and replatting within older residential subdivisions. Based upon our review, it appears this ordinance is merely a codification of a moratorium ordinance which the City passed and renewed over several years, effective) development of certain areas of College Station. A copy y preventing any enclosed for your information, PY of the moratorium and the ordinance is The purpose of this letter is to request that the City approve the replat Crux has previously submitted to the City for this property. The replat as submitted, provided for minimum lot widths of 65 feet. The average width of all lots in the proposed replat of the subdivision is 12- 1-03: 9:39AM:SGRM Arlington Mr. Tom Brymer City Manager - City of College Station, Texas September 12, 2003 Page 2 :8177954864 u 4/ 2,1 79 feet, and the area of each lot is greater than the 8,500 square feet required by the City's current Ordinance. The City has indicated that it will not approve at least 113 feet. The City's requirement of 113 feet minimum frontagle resultse in a plat with twelve less lots than the plat requested by Crux. It is our belief that the City has no discretion with regard to the approval of Crux's plat. The plat Crux has submitted to the City complies with all applicable ordinances which were in effect at the time Crux began the development process of the subject property. The current ordinance was not in place when Crux began its development process. Moreover, it is our belief that even if the ordinance had been adopted by the City When Crux began its development process, such ordinance is unenforceable. With regard to the first issue, I am sure you are aware that TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE § 245.002 provides that a person, such as Crux, is entitled to complete the development of property pursuant to the laws in place when it began the development process. In the present instance, the City adopted a series of moratoriums beginning in the year 2000 which were subsequently renewed several times, but the last of which expired on January 1, 2002. The ordinance which formerly amended the subdivision rules of the City of College Station and which essentially adopted the text of the moratorium, was not adopted by the City until January 24, 2002. Accordingly, between January 1, 2002 and January 24, 2002, there was no moratorium in place and no ordinance had been adopted which would have required the , minimum lot frontage the City currently contends is in place. On Janumet with the City and submitted its initial plat for the subject subdivision, which y 2, h incu ded to s less than 113 feet in width. A copy of such submittal is enclosed for your review. At the meeting on January 2, 2002, the City informed Crux that the moratorium was still in place and that it would not approve the subdivision plat because the frontage did not meet the City's requirements. I would point out that the City's representation that the moratorium was still in place was false and in fact, the plat which was submitted by Crux to the City complied with all applicable zoning and subdivision ordinances which were in place on January 2, 2002. In view of the fact that Crux submitted formal drawings and the subdivision plat to the City at a time when neither the moratorium nor the ordinance were in place, Crux is entitled to develop the property pursuant to the rules which were actually in place on January 2, 2002. The subdivision replat which has been submitted to the City, and which the City has rejected, complies with I~ those rules. Next, even if Crux had not submitted the plat application to the City until after the ordinance was adopted on January 24, 2002, it is the belief and position of Crux that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and is not enforceable. In particular, I would invite you to look at the 12- 1-03; 9:39AM;SGRM Arlington ;8177954864 Mr. Tom Brymer City Manager - City of College Station, Texas September 12, 2003 Page 3 ordinance and attempt to determine from the face of the ordinance how the minimum lot width on any proposed development is to be calculated. It appears the ordinance contemplates that the minimum lot width will be based upon the average width of lots on some unknown city block of property. At no place in the ordinance does it specifically set forth where this unknown "block" of property is located so a third party could look at the ordinance and determine what lot width is being required under the ordinance. In fact, when Crux spoke to City staff regarding the plat requirements, City staff indicated it is the one who determines what the width of the lots will be. City staff apparently had some criteria, known only to it, that it utilizes in determining what "block" should be looked at to determine what the width lot size should be, and then such staff uses some formula known only to it, to apply this formula to the contemplated subdivision to arrive at a minimum lot width. There is absolutely no way that a third party can look at the City's ordinance and know what "block" of property provides the base line for establishing the lot width. An ordinance must be clear on its face in order to be enforceable. The present ordinance is a lot of things, but clear on its face is not one of them. For these reasons, we would submit that the ordinance is not enforceable as written. Crux would like to resolve this issue on a friendly basis. The development of the property will be an extremely first rate development, and when the development is through, I sincerely doubt there will be any complaints from anyone about the size of the lots, the size of the homes constructed on it, or the quality of the development. However, the City's unlawful attempt to enforce the ordinance would deprive Crux of 12 additional lots which it could utilize for development. This translates to a loss of at least $700,000 to Crux for the additional 12 lots and homes; and a substantially greater loss than this if only the large lots currently mandated by the City on an unlawful basis continue to be unsalable. Although Crux has spoken with numerous potential purchasers of lots in the University Preserve Development, no purchaser has actually purchased a lot because prospective lot buyers consider University Preserve lots larger than desired due to the 113 feet minimum width requirement. To date, Crux's out-of-pocket investment in University Preserve Subdivision (excluding a reasonable investment return) is $1.4 million for land and infrastructure; and Crux is contemplating spending an additional $500,000 to construct two spec homes in the development to try to overcome the large lot-size impediment that has plagued the salability of the subdivision for almost a year. Because Crux needs to start construction of these two homes as quickly possible in order to have "roof tops" in the subdivision for retiring Aggies to look at before the A&M football season ends, a response from the City as soon as possible will be appreciated - preferably within the next two weeks. 5 / Review of the above information by your staff to facilitate a timely response to this request should not be a problem; because in addition to Mr. Deason personally visiting with members of 12- 1-03; 9:39AM;SGRM Arlington Mr. Tom Brymer City Manager - City of College Station, Texas September 12, 2003 Page 4 8177954864 4 6, your staff this past February and March and providing written information concerning Crux's reasons for replatting 12 additional lots in University Preserve, Mr. Deason and his local counsel (Charles Ellison) met for more than an hour with key members of your staff members on April 16 regarding these issues. The members of your staff attending the April 16" meeting were: Glenn Brown (the Assistant City Manager sitting in for you when you were unable to attend the meeting), Harvey Cargill (City Attorney), Roxanne Nemcik (Assistant City Attorney), Kelly Templin (Director Development Services), and Natalie Ruiz (Development Manager). - - We request that the City approve Crux's subdivision replat as originally presented to the City on January 2, 2002, and subsequently filed April 17, 2003. Please contact me at your earliest convenience so we may discuss these issues. LLF/sgb Enclosure Sincerely, gcL . Fowler c: Switzer L. Deason The Ci of Col eg Texas a Station, Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. Legal Department P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764-3507 • FAX: (979) 764-3481 www.d.college-stationAx.us December 2, 2003 By Facsimile (817) 795-4864 & Regular Mail Mr. Larry L. Fowler SHANNON, GRACEY, RATLIFF & MILLER, L.L.P. 1000 Ballpark Way, Suite 300 Arlington, Texas 76011 RE: Crux Financial Services, Inc. Dear Mr. Fowler: Thank you for responding to my request of November 26, 2003, by providing to me a copy of your September 12, 2003, letter to the City Manager. In the September 12, 2003, correspondence, you cite TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE § 245.002 as entitling a person "to complete the development of property pursuant to the laws in place when it began the development process." SECTION 245.002 provides for the approval, disapproval or conditional approval of an application for a permit solely on the basis of any orders, regulations, ordinances, rules, expiration dates, or other properly adopted requirements in effect at the time "the original application for a permit is filed." I am unaware of any legal authority that provides for vesting as a result of a pre-development meeting, as in this case. If you are aware of such legal authority, I would appreciate your sending a copy of the same. Thank you in advance for responding to the above question and comment. I look forward to hearing from you and resolving this matter. Sincerely, Harvey Cargill, Jr. City Attorney cc: Tom Brymer O: Dligalion Binders-Files%University PreservelCorreapondencell1-01-031tr to Fowler doc. Home of Texas A&M University 7rawportation evineering Aaly.4b Joseph D. Blaschke, D. Eng., P.E., President 1008 Woodcreek Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 • 9791693-5800 • Fax: 9791693-5870 • e-mail: tea 1®tca.net April 23, 2002 The City of College Station ATTN: Mr. Kelly E. Templin, AICP Director of Development Services P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 RE: TraTic Impact Assessment Redevelopment of Lots Along Munson Avenue Dear Mr. Templin: You have made me aware of the proposed redevelopment of existing lots along Munson Avenue in College Station near Francis Drive. It is my understanding that the proposed redevelopment would result in an additional 23 lots for single-unit residential development, and access to those lots would be from Munson Avenue. You have asked me to advise you in regards to how this proposed redevelopment would impact traffic flow conditions on Munson Avenue. This correspondence has been prepared to respond to your request. We are certainly aware of the recent history of Munson Avenue which included a period of time during which the street was closed to through traffic, and various traffic calming techniques were implemented. These modifications were in response to residents who were concerned about vehicular traffic using Munson as a "through" street. Because Munson Avenue links Lincoln Avenue with Harvey Road, it will function always to some degree as a collector street and will accommodate some through traffic. Traffic volumes on Munson Avenue had reached volumes of close to 7,000 vehicles per day in 1990. This relatively high amount of vehicular traffic likely was due to several conditions, including construction on Texas Avenue and the presence of the Blinn College Campus on Harvey Road. Since that date, Texas Avenue is open and has six travel lanes, the Blinn Campus has moved to Bryan, and the various traffic calming techniques have proven successful. Current traffic volumes, recently counted by Dale Picha, the city traffic engineer, are about 4,700 vehicles per day. This traffic volume is more consistent with a large neighborhood collector street. If the redevelopment is allowed to take place and all lots are developed and occupied, one would expect additional traffic to be generated. Current generation rates for single-unit residential Specializing in: Traffic Engineering Roadway Design Accident Analysis Kelly E. Templin April 23, 2002 Page 2 developments are 8 to 10 vehicle trips per day. (A vehicle trip is defined as a vehicle either leaving the development or arriving at the development.) Hence, the additional 23 lots, when fully developed, would generate about 230 additional vehicle trips on Munson Avenue. Developments such as office complexes generate traffic volumes that have high-volume "peaks" during the morning- and evening-peak periods. Such "peak" generations create more impact on the street system than developments (such as residential homes) that spread its generated traffic throughout the day. Hence, the additional 230 vehicle trips per day that would be expected from the redevelopment would be spread throughout the day and would have very little impact on Munson Avenue. The amount of additional traffic likely would not be noticeable. From a traffic engineering perspective, the proposed redevelopment along Munson Avenue will not generate sufficient additional traffic to either create traffic congestion or cause a concern to public safety. In addition, no modifications to Munson Avenue would be necessary to accommodate the increased traffic volume. Please contact me if you have any questions. Res ectfully submitted, Joseph D. Blaschke, :D.Eng., P.E. President JDB/sb xc: Dale L. Picha JOSPtl D BtASCliltf ►13 _ 422M _ :,4, Members 6/17/02 Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station Greetings: I will be out of town on July 1, 2002 but I would like to transmit my input on the application by Mr. Switzer Deason to create the University Preserve Subdivision on Munson Avenue. The following sheets will provide my input: • Charles Pinnell -1205 Munson • Map Of Area • Traffic Impact • Property Values I consider myself qualified to comment on the Traffic Impact since I hold degrees in Civil Engineering and served as a Research Engineer for the Texas Transportation Institute of the Texas A&M University System for a number of years. Thanks very much for your consideration of my input. Sincerely, ajivv AL~ Charles Pinnell 1205 Munson College Station, Texas Charles Pinnell -1205 Munson • I own approximately 3.99 acres of land at 1205 Munson. • The land was purchased in 1963 and two lots were sold near Munson (Casey and Bowman). • A 50 foot Right-Of-Way connecting to Munson was reserved so that it would be possible to serve the back part of my property which might be sold at a later date. • I will be impacted by the proposed development of the property. I now own 3.99 acres and if the subdivision is developed my property would be reduced to 0.635 acres. It is my belief however that the proposed subdivision is planned so that each property owner would have a significant and private space. -1- Map Of Area (Not To Scale) MUNSON -2- Traffic Impact • The proposed subdivision would take from 5-6 years to develop. • One national study sponsored by the U.S Department Of Transportation and The Institute Of Transportation Engineers indicates an average of 10.03 Trips Per Day per residence for residential subdivisions. The City of College Station uses an average of 9.55 Trips Per Day. Using these figures the proposed subdivision would develop from 240-300 Trips Per Day when fully developed. • Counts taken on Munson in the period April 22- 26, 2002 had a peak hour volume of 426 veh/hr and a 24 hr volume of 4370 vehicles. • Traffic from the proposed subdivision would be less than 7% (300/4370) of that on Munson. -3- Property Values • The proposed subdivision would produce property values in the 4-6 million dollar range when it is fully developed. • Thus the City of College Station tax base would benefit greatly when compared to the vacant land values which now exist. -4- 02-107 Mr. Joe Bergstad 1202 Walton Drive College Station, TX 77840 02-107 Mr. Peter Hugil 904 Francis College Station, TX 77840 02-107 Benito Flores-Meath 901 Val Verde College Station, TX 77845 02-107 Rodney Wallie 813 Val Verde College Station, TX 77845 02-107 June 12, 2002 02-107 Mr. George Huebner 1010 Walton Drive College Station, TX 77840 02-107 Bob Jones, Jones & Carter, Inc. Consulting Engineers 6335 Gulfton Houston, TX 77081 02-107 Dale Browne P.O. Box 10838 College Station, TX 77842 FILE COPY 02-107 Ms. Sarah Witham Bednar 1101 Marsteller Avenue College Station, TX 77840 02--107 Stephen Miller 906 Munson College Station, TX 77840 02-107 Crux Financial Services, Inc. 502 Arrowhead Point Road Belton, TX 76513 A notification letter was sent to these on the following list, which includes citizens who spoke at the previous public hearing re: University Preserve, (02-40), the Homeowner's Associations, and those listed on the application (property owner, engineer). Per Natalie Ruiz's e-mail, attached. Susan Hazlett June 12, 2002 Susan Hazlett - Notices for 7/1 P&Z Meeting From: Natalie Ruiz To: Susan Hazlett Date: 6/7/02 10:56AM Subject: Notices for 7/1 P&Z Meeting b We need to make sure we go "above & beyond" on the notification for University Preserve. Please make sure that the HOA's in the College Hills area receive notification as well as Mr. Jones who spoke at the previous meeting. (We should probably make sure that everyone who spoke at the preliminary plat PH receive a notice.) Also, please make sure that Fain McDougal from McDougal & Company receives a notice on case #02-98. On the 2 Arnold Road rezoning cases (01-267 & 02-109) and the Edelweiss Gartens case (02-93), please make sure that the Edelweiss & Devonshire HOA's receive a notice. Thanks for your help Susan! Page 1 CC: Bridgette George 1-03; 9:39AM:SGRM Arlington 9797741156 Jul 30 03 04:5Sp RBEI O.in- a.•;.'. 1: F~aw: Tammy Kacik ;8177954864 UNIVERSITY PRESERVE. bIY-tlRb-aat~ 979-76.-3896 °ape l ~f FACSIMILE COVER PAGE Date; 1 /4/02 T ime: 42:26 Pages: 3 To: Dale Browne Company: Ash A Browne Engineering, Inc. Fax 846-6914 From: Tommy Mocik Title: Secretary Company: City of College Station Address: 1101 T"as Avenue College Station , TX 77842 Fax 979-764-3496 Voice 4 979-764-3570 Message; Good Morning! Faxed is Chit Section 18 of the Subdivision Regulation Jessica Jimmerson requested I send to you. It is in regards to the Platting end Replatting within older residential subdivisions. If you have any questions, please let us know. Thanks, Tammy Maak # 2 1 , 08-18-03 20:56 TO:SHANNON GRACEY FRON:9797741156 P41 =M;SGRM Arlington 1... '1=10 Hi: ?1 9 971 4115 l 30 C3 U4: 56p R1ft t ;run: Ma:1A UfJI1?EP~,IT'r PPESLR'-.-L. cXj_-Es_;Ecp pace SECTION 18 PLATTING AND REPLAT71NGWITH N O-DER RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS .2-A In adctt,or~'o the other nrov,stnns of `.hrb O'cunance. no ?lppllcaiaL fo- ~•el. rE!(~t2% vace:lUfY~ and resl:bdivlding plat of other pest mlendoa to provipt for tho resubdl ns•c•r of an _xt3•tng lct ur u1s ni s c6:dent at satid+nnwn ;+eatrjd prior e July t5. 1970, may t con;ldelect 'of approval Uld(:65. 64 7 The Flat Jo65 not create an adcowmall Ict Or building plot b-A 2 A plat whlc(1 does create an ast;ttional 0 of building plo: must veer or exceed the a~eragr• widtn c; the lots slong IFS street frontage, for al ;cts ;n the brock wid contain at lest 6,500 square test :f ,apace ter "en ewel. nq unit, For the purpose of this traction. a lot Shalt be det-ned to rnclune the lot vas anc/b po-tlrns of lots that have been combineta and uses as x reslde-rlbl plUr, bs Of the effective cia,e Of this otdtnancE e-A .t '1 hic moratorium o-1 an applicaka% for a chenre to a plat Sha'I app,., to the fotlowmg areas Atea A - Al area toLmcfed t y Texas Avenue Holleman n.we, >laa6 Avenue, t:outhwmt PrX{nvay• Wellborn Road ankl George 5isn Glint: and rellectec r, :uuslie0on A below G- te, 9-54 -IS-03 20:57 TO:SHANNON GRACEY FROM:9797741156 1?4 2 12- 1-03; 9:39AM;SGRM Arlington F19: 31 9797741156 Jul jib 03 04!56F RBEI ltd%."•9i.: 05r1-: rrin: Tens. IhCik Area S - ;8177954804 I_NdIVERSIT:' PRESER'+:E:. 979-8416-U!dl4 9711-764-P69i Fi3e 5 :f , An area bountlM Lre Texas AVeF;L1C. I,riversity 'rarr-j:: Street. LInCOM Avtnuc. u-i ve-slty Grn.•e. tree Far: Fiurdd,.r Free.%Sy aryl Harvey Rc1ao and ricluclej to Illljyr'd' ian F, below. '8•B. c plrar not ft~ lion N3 -his s6cticn and sl:tsi r u;ns shaN zrpire on Janus y t ?QU2 I'r~YnYnc• No. 2192 of Matth fl, 28D7 I Re. ;.m 9a'1 # _ IS:--03 20:57 TO:SHANNON GRACEY FROM: 9797741 156 bikr path (Class 111 iacilitrt) right-of-wav or easement or upon and across parks, schools, or other publicly owned lands where a path is designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles- Use by pedestrians may or may not be permitted. The parking of any thnnugh traffic by motor vehicles is pro- hibited. Cross-flows by motor vehicles and ped(2strians, when necessarv to gain cress to and from a public street or alley arnd,or a private driyevvav or other en- iranceway, are permitted. (Raleigh. N.C) ■ bike path (Class III facility) \ fa- , dih shared with motorists and identi- twd only b_y signs; a bicycle route has no imp anent markings or lane stripes. liar",, ula, Calfi.) ■ biotic community (Sec' also wildlife habitat) A group of living organisms characterized by a distinctive combina- tion of both animal and plant species in a particular habitat. (California Planning Roundtable) ■ blight Unsightly condition includ- ing the accumulation of debris, litter, rubbish, or rubble; fences characterized by holes, breaks, rot, crumbling, crack- ing, peeling or rusting; landscaping that is dead, characterized by uncontrolled growth or lack of maintenance, or dam- aged; and any other similar conditions of disrepair and deterioration regardless of the condition of other properties in the neighborhood. (Lincoln, Nebr.) ,1ny road, street, path or wav° which in some manner is specifically designated as being open to bicycle travel, regard- less of whether the facility is designed for the exclusive use of bicycles or is to he ;hared with other transportation modes. (Gaines ille, Fla.) ■ bike route Those bikewavs on ex- isting street rights-of-way where bicycles share the roadwav with motor vehicles. Bicycle routes are designed by signs placed on vertical posts or stencilled on the pavement. Parking may or may not be allowed or it may be restricted to only certain hours of each day. (Raici,~h, N.C.) ■ block An area of land bounded by a street, or by a combination of streets and public parks, cemeteries, railroad rights-of-wav_ , exterior boundaries of a subdivision, shorelines of waterwavs, or corporate boundaries. (Ames, loie,a) board of zoning appeals and adjustnents side of a street between the two nearest in- tersecting streets (or between an intersect- ing street and railroad right-of-way or un- subdivided acreage) 50 percent or more of which is in use for business or industrial purposes. (Santa Clara County, Calif.) ■ block grant (See also Community Development Block Grant (CDBG); tar- get area) A grant which can be used to fund a wide range of community. im- provement projects or programs. It is a multipurpose grant and is not to be used for a single specific purpose. (Handbook A7 Plauuin~ Connttissioners in Missouri) ■ blockface The properties abutting on one side of a street and lying between the two nearest intersecting or intercept- ing streets, or nearest intersecting or in- tercepting street and railroad right-of- way, unsubdivided land, watercourse, or city boundary. (Huutin;hm Beach, Calif.) The portion of a block that abuts a street. (Houston, Tex.) An area of land entirely bounded by streets. (Blue Springs, Mo.) The property abutting one side of a street and lying between the two nearest inter- secting streets (crossing or terminating), or between the nearest such street and railroad right-of-way, unsubdivided acreage, lake, river, or live stream, or be- tween any of the foregoing and any other physical barrier to the continuity of development, or corporate boundary line of the municipality. (St. Paul, Minn.) ■ bike way All thoroughfares that ex- plicitly provide for bicycle travel includ- ing facilities existing within street and highway rights-of-wav and facilities along separate and independent corri- dors. tRalci,~h, N.C.) ■ billboard (See sign, billboard) ■ bingo hall A facility used primarily for the conduct of bingo games, open to the public and not in a subsidiary nature to another use. (Virginia Beach, Va.) ■ biomass plant material, used for the production of such things as fuel al- cohol and nonchemical fertilizers- Biomass sources may be plants grown especially for that purpose or waste products from livestock, harvesting, milling, or from agricultural production or processing. !California Phomml~ Round- table) A block consists of two facing block fronts bounded on two sides by alleys or rear property lines and on two sides by the centerline of platted streets, with no other intersecting streets intervening. Where blocks are unusually long or short, or of unusual shape, block length shall be determined by address ranges. (Renton, Wash) A unit of land bounded by streets or by a combination of streets and public land, railroad rights-of-way, waterways, or any other barrier to the continuity of de- velopment. (Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn.) ■ blockfront A block front means the frontage of property along one side of a street bound on three sides by the cen- terline of platted streets and on the fourth side by an alley or rear properh lines. (Renton, Wash.) ■ bluff A steep headland, promon- tory riverbank, or cliff. (Ashe~~ille, ,AIC.) An escarpment or steep face of rock, de- composed rock, sediment, or soil result- ing from erosion, faulting, folding, or ex- cavation of the land mass that has a ver- tical relief of 10 feet or more and is in the coastal zone. (San Diego, Calif.) ■ board of supervisors A county's leg- islative body. Board members are elected by popular vote and are responsible for enacting ordinances, imposing taxes, making appropriations and establishing county policy. The board adopts the gen- eral plan, zoning, and subdivision regula- tions. (Sierra, California, Business Council) ■ board of zoning appeals and adjust- ments A local body, appointed by the city council, whose responsibility is to hear appeals from decisions of the direc- tor of planning and development and to consider requests for variances and ex- ceptions. (Conyers, Ga.) ■ block, business Frontage in any commercial or industrial district on one 47 ev~~ Since the adoption of Section 18, there the regulation, shown below in red. On Yellow identifies R-1 Single Family Res 'y X411 p da"y" 3ve been seven variances requested to property requested a variance twice. ential zoning. / C;~- f ~ /mss Home of Texas A&M University ~r .12- 1-03; 9:39AM;SGRM Arlington ;8177954864 # 7. r 11-t• t _.iJ }._ti;. 1 f . _ --rte c C ACCES~ ( "2 i 0 ,rt 0r r "~AOCESS : ; CASEMENIr f EASE Lw, ' "=r, < ! ► r,71 4 cz~ A-A LOT AREA LOT AREA I C.30 AO (13,040 SF) 11 6, 9 AC 02,023 8F) 2 0.26 A- (12.186 OF) it 0.27 AC (111741 $F) 3 0.22 At ( 0,673 SF) 13 0.31 AC (13,415 3F) 4 0.35 AC (16,238 SF) 14 0.27 AC (11.666 3F) 5 0.88 AC (29,740 SF) 16 0.26 AC !12,$58 8F) 0.31 A.^, 03,60; 3F) 10 0.41 AC (17,801 8>F) d 0.31 A. (13,626 3F) 17 0.43 AC ;10,881 89) 0 0.22 >Ac ( 0,716 SF) 18 0.35 AC (15,340 Sr-) REASON SUBDIVISION 10 4.26 AC (11,566 8F) VAN PRELIMINARY LAYOUT SCALE, 1' - 200' watt ENciINEE INC. SM 14E86, Go~io6c Station, cxac 77842 r1042531-00 -01 p'¢iib6°t< a1:as sa3~ rg: a+~ w:_.~1, 1:-1'i-d3 20:53 TO:SHANNON GRACEX FROH:9797741156 F'3 7 Agenda Item # 6 Replat of University Preserve LA=?lli4G, / j . ~..~;4:C3~f3 i I a, i 3 Subdivision Regulations • Properties platted before 1970: - Minimum lot area - 8500 square feet - Minimum lot width - Average of lots in the block. Comparison • Ordinance Regs. University Preserve - 11,300 sq. ft. min. -22,869 sq. ft. lot area average lot area - 113' lot width - 113' lot width minimum minimum - 125' average lot width 2 Neighborhood Concerns • Location of the subdivision entrance. • Drainage. • Increased traffic. 435' 830' 480 190',f 3 Petition • Cul-de-sac provisions in the City's Subdivision Regulations, Section 8-G.6. • Conformance with the City's General Plan and Development Guidelines. Cul-de-sac Requirements Cul-de-sacs shall have 24 or fewer lots, and shall terminate in a turnaround not less than 100' in diameter, with a pavement diameter of 80'. 4 Definition of "Cul-de-Sac" Means a street having only 1 access to another street and terminating on the other end in a vehicular turnaround. Petition • Cul-de-sac provisions in the City's Subdivision Regulations, Section 8-G.6. • Conformance with the City's General Plan and Development Guidelines. Commission Action Options: Final Plat: 1. Approve as submitted 2. Deny 3. Table or Defer only at applicant's request 5 R I 6 O © ~ H Unwer ~ Preservo Ty'r r s ` fit; y ~ ~ f w w: ♦ 6 s ,w Ij 4P Definition of a "Block" A unit of land bounded by streets or a combination of streets and public land, railroad rights-of-way, water ways or any other barrier to the continuity of development. 7 8 UNIVERSITY PRESERVE Final Plat i1 I recommend approval of the Final Plat as submitted. 64 LA/I S SLIDE - SAM WITH SUBDIVISION The proposal is for a gated single family subdivision for 25 homes on 14 acres generally located near the intersection of Munson and Dominik. (ORIENT P&Z TO GRAPHIC) Three of the homes within the proposed plat are existing; so, the request is for a total of 22 additional homes. The replat before you further subdivides three lots of the Woodland Estates Subdivision originally platted in 1941 prior to annexation. SLIDE OF WOODLANDS PLAT, 1941 This is the original Woodland Estates Subdivision (ORIENT P&Z TO PLAT). As you can see, in 1941 this section along Munson from Dominik to Lincoln consisted of large lots of approximately 5 acres each. SLIDE OF OVERLAY As you can see from this graphic, over time, most of the original 5 acre lots have been resubdivided into smaller lots. The original 5 acre lots are shown by the dashed lines in blue. (ORIENT TO GRAPHIC) Earlier this year, the Subdivision Regulations were amended to address platting within older residential subdivisions. The new requirements under this section further restrict density and minimum lot dimensions e g of the SLIDE SECTION 18 The new criteria provides that: If you want to redevelop property in an area that was platted prior to 1970, when the City's Subdivision Regulations were adopted, all lots must have a minimum lot area of 8500 SF and the minimum lot width is determined by taking the average of the lots in the block. This new criteria applies to the plat before you tonight. SLIDE - COMPARISON OF SECTION 18 & PROPOSAL In this case, the minimum lot area allowed is 11,300 SF. The average lot area of the plat before you tonight is more than twice that at-. just over 1/2 acre per lot. The minimum lot width was determined to be 113' and the proposed replat complies with that requirement. The average lot width is approximately 125'. SLIDE - COMP PLAN The City's Land Use Plan shows the subject property as Low Density Single Family Residential, which has a corresponding gross density of 1/3 to 2 dwelling units per acre. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.78 dwelling units per acre which is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission approved a preliminary plat for this subdivision on March 21 st of this year. At that public hearing, many surrounding property owners expressed concern regarding several issues associated with the subdivision. However, three primary concerns were expressed. SLIDE - NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS Those were: • The location of the subdivision entrance on Munson, • Drainage concerns, and • Increased traffic to the area especially to Munson Avenue, SLIDE - LOCATION OF ENTRANCE ON MUNSON • Several area residents expressed concern regarding the location of Lyceum Court along Munson Avenue. Staff has worked closely with the design engineer on the location of this street to make sure that it's as far away from the curve in Munson Avenue and the Gilchrist intersection as possible for safety reasons. The developer explored the possibility of access through private property to Dominik and was not successful in acquiring property off-site. Staff feels that the location of the street is in the best possible location given the existing physical constraints. SLIDE - DRAINAGE MAP SHOWING DETENTION POND • Many of the area residents expressed concern with the increased run-off created by this development. Two property owners along Dominik complained of flooding problems during moderate rainfall. Currently, drainage flows from the north corner of the subject property, south towards the intersection of Munson and Dominik. With development of this subdivision, the run-off will be collected along Lyceum and Sanctuary Drives to the detention pond. The pond will discharge into a drainage swale that connects to Munson Avenue. Property owners along Dominik should experience a significant decrease in the amount of run-off to the rear of their property. One single family lot was removed from the approved preliminary plat to enlarge the proposed storm water detention facility. The 3rd primary concern expressed by area residents was traffic. This has also prompted a petition by surroudning property owners to the Commission to deny the plat based on two points: SLIDE - PETITION • The cul-de-sac provisions in the City's Subdivision Regulations; and, • Non-compliance with the City's General Plan as provided for in the Texas Local Government Code. SLIDE - CUL-DE-SAC REGULATIONS Section 8-G.6 of the City's Subdivision Regulations states, "Cul-de-sacs shall have 24 or fewer lots, and shall terminate in a turnaround not less than 100' in diameter, with a pavement diameter of 80'." In my opinion, this criteria has been met. SLIDE - DEFINITION OF CUL-DE-SAC The definition of a cul-de-sac is defined in the City's Code of Ordinances as "a street having only 1 access to another street and terminating on the other end in a vehicular turnaround." Since traffic is such an important issue in this case, the City hired an independent Traffic Impact Assessment by Dr. Blaschke who is here tonight to address the Commission. He will summarize his assessment and address the cul-de-sac issue. SLIDE P&Z OPTIONS O ■ Approval as submitted; ■ Denial; ■ Table or Defer action only at applicant's request This item is scheduled for a public hearing. Staff has received numerous inquiries and responses to the 65 notices that were mailed to surrounding property owners. We also received a written statement from Dr. Pinnell at 1205 Munson in support of the project which is included in your packet. Local Government Code - CHAPTER 212 Page 11, 12 of 22 § 212.015. Additional Requirements for Certain Replats (a) In addition to compliance with Section 212.014, a replat without vacation of the preceding plat must conform to the requirements of this section if (1) during the preceding five years, any of the area to be replatted was limited by an interim or permanent zoning classification to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot; or (2) any lot in the preceding plat was limited by deed restrictions to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot. (b) Notice of the hearing required under Section 212.014 shall be given before the 15"' day before the date of the hearing by: (1) publication in an official newspaper or a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the municipality is located; and (2) by written notice, with a copy of Subsection (c) attached, forwarded by the municipal authority responsible for approving plats to the owners of lots that are in the original subdivision and that are within 200 feet of the lots to be replatted, as indicated on the most recently approved municipal tax roll or in the case of a subdivision within the extraterritorial jurisdiction, the most recently approved county tax roll of the property upon which the replat is requested. The written notice may be delivered by depositing the notice, properly addressed with postage prepaid, in a post office or postal depository within the boundaries of the municipality. (c) If the proposed replat requires a variance and is protested in accordance with this subsection, the proposed replat must receive, in order to be approved, the affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of the members present of the municipal planning commission or governing body, or both. For a legal protest, written instruments signed by the owners of at least 20 percent of the area of the lots or land immediately adjoining the area covered by the proposed replat and extending 200 feet from that area, but within the original subdivision, must be filed with the municipal planning commission or governing body, or both, prior to the close of the public hearing. (d) In computing the percentage of land area under Subsection (c), the area of streets and alleys shall be included. (e) Compliance with Subsections (c) and (d) is not required for approval of a replat of part of a preceding plat if the area to be replatted was designated or reserved for other than single or duplex family residential use by notation on the last legally recorded plat or in the legally recorded restrictions applicable to the plat. Acts 1987, 7& Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by Acts 1989, 71s` Leg., ch. 345, 2 to 5, eff. Aug. 28, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 1046, § 3, eff. Aug. 30, 1993. UNIVERSITY PRESERVE SUBDIVISION RATIONAL DRAINGE CALCULATIONS Point of Interest #1 Developed Conditions without Detention May 2002 1042001 By: JDB DRAINAGE AREA TYPES EXISTING Area Runoff Coefficient acres Open Area 16.50 0.35 Impervious Areas (Concrete, Buildings, etc.)(+/- 320,000 sf) 7.35 0.90 Total: 23.85 0.52 Existin Flow Path Description Length Slop a Data Slope Velocity Time ft Begin Elev. End Elev. % (fps) min. Overland Flow 300 323.00 321.00 0.67 0.23 21.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow 176 321.00 320.00 0.57 0.57 5.1 Gutter Flow 893 319.50 312.00 0.84 3.50 4.3 Channel Flow 541 312.00 306.00 1.11 3.80 2.4 Gutter Flow 238 306.00 302.00 1.68 4.20 0.9 TOTAL: 34.0 Time of Concentration Tc Used Existing Conditions 10 min.) 1 34.0 min. 34.0 min. Storm Period BRAZOS COUNTY Existing Existing b d e Intensity Runoff ear in/hr cfs 2 65 8.0 0.806 3.20 39.63 5 76 8.5 0.785 4.00 49.66 10 80 8.5 0.763 4.58 56.77 25 89 8.5 0.754 5.27 65.32 50 98 8.5 0.745 6.00 74.40 100 96 8.0 0.730 6.27 77.76 Intensity = b/ (Tc + d)"e UNIVERSITY PRESERVE SUBDIVISION RATIONAL DRAINGE CALCULATIONS Point of Interest #1 Existing Conditions May 2002 1042001 By: JDB DRAINAGE AREA TYPES EXISTING Area Runoff Coefficient acres Open Area 22.01 0.35 Impervious Areas (Concrete, Buildings, etc.)(+/- 80,000 sf) 1.84 0.90 Total: 23.85 0.39 Existin Flow Path Description Length Slo Data Slope Velocity Time (ft) Begin Elev. End Elev. °/G (fps) min. Overland Flow 300 323.00 321.00 0.67 0.23 21.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow 1143 321.00 308.50 1.09 1.09 17.5 Gutter Flow 489 308.00 302.00 1.23 4.00 2.0 TOTAL: 41.0 Time of Concentration Tc Used Existing Conditions 10 min.) 1 41.0 min. 41.0 Storm Period BRAZOS COUNTY Existing Existing b d e Intensity Runoff ear in/hr cfs 2 65 8.0 0.806 2.82 26.23 5 76 8.5 0.785 3.55 33.02 10 80 8.5 0.763 4.07 37.86 25 89 8.5 0.754 4.70 43.72 50 98 8.5 0.745 5.35 49.76 100 96 8.0 0.730 5.60 52.09 Intensity = b/ (Tc + d)"e UNIVERSITY PRESERVE SUBDIVISION RATIONAL DRAINGE CALCULATIONS Point of Interest #1 Existing Conditions May 2002 1042001 By: JDB DRAINAGE AREA TYPES EXISTING Area Runoff Coefficient acres Open Area 22.01 0.35 Impervious Areas (Concrete, Buildings, etc.)(+/- 80,000 sf) 1.84 0.90 Total: 23.85 0.39 Existin Flow Path Description Length Slope Data Slope Velocity Time ft Begin Elev. End Elev. % (fps) min. Overland Flow 300 323.00 321.00 0.67 0.23 21.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow 1143 321.00 308.50 1.09 1.09 17.5 Gutter Flow 489 308.00 302.00 1.23 4.00 2.0 TOTAL: 41.0 Time of Concentration Tc Used Existing Conditions 10 min.) 1 41.0 min. 41.0 min. Storm Period BRAZOS COUNTY Existing Existing b d e Intensity Runoff ear in/hr cfs 2 65 8.0 0.806 2.82 26.23 5 76 8.5 0.785 3.55 33.02 10 80 8.5 0.763 4.07 37.86 25 89 8.5 0.754 4.70 43.72 50 98 8.5 0.745 5.35 49.76 100 96 8.0 0.730 5.60 52.09 Intensity = b/ (Tc + d)^e UNIVERSITY PRESERVE SUBDIVISION RATIONAL DRAINGE CALCULATIONS Point of Interest #1 Developed Conditions without Detention May 2002 1042001 By: JDB DRAINAGE AREA TYPES EXISTING Area Runoff Coefficient acres Open Area 16.50 0.35 Impervious Areas (Concrete, Buildings, etc.)(+/- 320,000 sf) 7.35 0.90 Total: 23.85 0.52 Existin Flow Path Description Length Slope Data Slope Velocity Time ft Begin Elev. End Elev. % (fps) min. Overland Flow 300 323.00 321.00 0.67 0.23 21.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow 176 321.00 320.00 0.57 0.57 5.1 Gutter Flow 893 319.50 312.00 0.84 3.50 4.3 Channel Flow 541 312.00 306.00 1.11 3.80 2.4 Gutter Flow 238 306.00 302.00 1.68 4.20 0.9 TOTAL: 34.0 Time of Concentration Tc Used Existing Conditions 10 min.) 1 34.0 min. 34.0 Storm Period BRAZOS COUNTY Existing Existing b d e Intensity Runoff ear in/hr cfs 2 65 8.0 0.806 3.20 39.63 5 76 8.5 0.785 4.00 49.66 10 80 8.5 0.763 4.58 56.77 25 89 8.5 0.754 5.27 65.32 50 98 8.5 0.745 6.00 74.40 100 96 8.0 0.730 6.27 77.76 Intensity = b/ (Tc + d)"e 12- 1-03; 9:39AM:SlGRM Arlington 1 1 f : ~I l~ . ~i~ ACCESi 1 r -2 1 CASEMENIr J .'1 I t 4 ~f x / 1v;,~ ~M51 E I 1 f ti (I 1 I••. _ _ . -,yam , _~~.1 j ..r. < ..1~ I :8177954864 r r i I i ~ I 1 r--y # 7 I (1 L/zT.- r LOT AREA LOT AREA 1 C-30 Air (13,040 8f) 11 o zp Ac 112,023 8F) 2 0.2s A- (112.188 vF) 1Q 0.27 AC (11,741 15F) 3 0.22 4 ( 0,573 SF) 13 0.31 AC (13,415 $F) A 5 0.35 AC (16,238 5F) 0.88 .4C (29,740 5F) ' 14 16 0.27 Ac (11,806 SF) 0.26 AC !12,3$8 9F) 0.311 4 03,60' 3F) 1B 0.41 AO (17,801 0F) d 0.31 A (13.626 5F) 1T 0.43 AC ;18,881 8F) 0 10 0-22 AC 1 6,7115 6F) 0.28 AC (11.286 sF) is 0.35 AC (15,360 SF) 1 { ~1 t !11 OF-ASON SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY LAYOUT SCALE: t' 200' A&H 4 ismre ENO true, F,O. Bm 10E38, Co11W Suwon, 7cxas 77tli: 042001-003-01 20:53 TO: SHANNON GRACEY FROM: 9797741156 FE'S 7 12- 1-o3; 9:39AM;SGRM Arlington ;8177954864 tt - 9797741156 1_IhIIVEF IT4' F'FSEF;t'E. PA,_E PRELIMINARY "llik DEASON SUBDIVISION e MUNSORIDOMINIK ACCESS FOR TRACTS A, Q, & C SCAM- V - 200 0' A$ff a MOWIM MOMMXING, INC. "PAms , r.0.8ax 10638 nd c SUMM TOM g F- M446 .0 9 , 1042001-004-01 CDIWV 979-044-014 m.~a, roc: -oyia 03-13-03 20:55 TO:SHANNON GRACEY FRO?Q :9797741 1 56 p,^., 1-03: 9:394M:SGRM Arlington :c X19: 1 y79''4115b _779~.s ~o4 ~ UNIVERSIT`.` PPESER,.rE. W, F:; -lE I F---] F--. ,9-18-03 20:55 TO:SHANNON GRACEY FROM'9797741156 P3 9 § 212.012 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (2) "Subdivider" has the meaning assigned by Section 232.021. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amend- ed by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 46(b), eff. Aug. 28, 1989; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 624, § 3.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1062, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 18.34, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 404, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. § 212.013. Vacating Plat (a) The proprietors of the tract covered by a plat may vacate the plat at any time before any lot in the plat is sold. The plat is vacated when a signed, acknowledged instrument declaring the plat vacated is approved and recorded in the manner prescribed for the original plat. (b) If lots in the plat have been sold, the plat, or any part of the plat, may be vacated on the application of all the owners of lots in the plat with approval obtained in the manner prescribed for the original plat. (c) The county clerk shall write legibly on the va- cated plat the word "Vacated" and shall enter on the plat a reference to the volume and page at which the vacating instrument is recorded. (d) On the execution and recording of the vacating instrument, the vacated plat has no effect. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. § 212.014. Replatting Without Vacating Preced- ing Plat A replat of a subdivision or part of a subdivision may be recorded and is controlling over the preceding plat without vacation of that plat if the replat: (1) is signed and acknowledged by only the own- ers of the property being replatted; (2) is approved, after a public hearing on the matter at which parties in interest and citizens have an opportunity to be heard, by the municipal au- thority responsible for approving plats; and (3) does not attempt to amend or remove any covenants or restrictions. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987 § 212.0145. Replatting Without Vacating Preced- ing Plat: Certain Subdivisions (a) A replat of a part of a subdivision may be recorded and is controlling over the preceding plat without vacation of that plat if the replat: (1) is signed and acknowledged by only the own- ers of the property being replatted; and (2) involves only property: (A) of less than one acre that fronts an existing street; and (B) that is owned and used by a nonprofit corpo- ration established to assist children in at-risk situa- tions through volunteer and individualized attention. (b) An existing covenant or restriction for property that is replatted under this section does not have to be amended or removed if: (1) the covenant or restriction was recorded more than 50 years before the date of the replat; and (2) the replatted property has been continuously used by the nonprofit corporation for at least 10 years before the date of the replat. (c) Sections 212.014 and 212.015 do not apply to a replat under this section. Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1130, § 1, eff. June 18, 1999. § 212.015. Additional Requirements for Certain Replats (a) In addition to compliance with Section 212.014, a replat without vacation of the preceding plat must conform to the requirements of this section if: (1) during the preceding five years, any of the area to be replatted was limited by an interim or permanent zoning classification to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot; or (2) any lot in the preceding plat was limited by deed restrictions to residential use for not more than two residential units per lot. (b) Notice of the hearing required under Section 212.014 shall be given before the 15th day before the date of the hearing by: (1) publication in an official newspaper or a news- paper of general circulation in the county in which the municipality is located; and (2) by written notice, with a copy of Subsection (c) attached, forwarded by the municipal authority responsible for approving plats to the owners of lots that are in the original subdivision and that are within 200 feet of the lots to be replatted, as indicat- ed on the most recently approved municipal tax roll or in the case of a subdivision within the extraterri- torial jurisdiction, the most recently approved coun- ty tax roll of the property upon which the replat is requested. The written notice may be delivered by 396 SECTION 18: PLATTING AND REPLATTING WITHIN OLDER RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS 18-A. In addition to the other provisions of this ordinance, no application for plat, replat, vacating and resubdividing plat or other plat intended to provide for the resubdividion of an existing lot or lots in a residential subdivision created prior to July 15, 1970, may be considered for approval unless: 18-A.1 The plat does not create an additional lot or building plot. 18-A.2 A plat which does create an additional lot or building plot must meet or exceed the average width of the lots along the street frontage, for all lots in the block and contain at least 8,500 square feet of space for each dwelling unit. For the purpose of this section, a lot shall be defined to include the lot, lots and/or portions of lots that have been combined and used as a residential plot, as of the effective date of this ordinance. 18-A.3 This moratorium on an application for a change to a plat shall apply to the following areas: Area A - An area bounded by Texas Avenue, Holleman Drive, Glade Avenue, Southwest Parkway, Wellborn Road and George Bush Drive and reflected in Illustration A below. Illustration A 9-53 Rev. 6/01 UNIVERSITY PRESERVE SUBDIVISION Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ABET No. 1042001 MAY 24, 2002 The following construction estimate is based on the engineer's opinion of probable construction costs. This estimate constitutes our best judgement at this time. Please note that the engineer does not have any control over contractor or supplier workloads and the degree to which inflation may affect project costs between now and the bid date. During construction, additional features may become apparent as the work progresses, which will result in an increase in cost. Item Description Estimated Estimated ESTIMATED No. Quantity Unit Cost TOTAL COSTS 1.00 WATER 1.01 6"o AWWA C900 Class 200 PVC Pipe 1,950 LF $8.00 $15,600 (includes installation, testing, and cleanup.) 1.02 Water Services (Near & Far) 23 EA $750.00 $17,250 1.03 6" Gate Valve (includes installation and 3 EA $400.00 $1,200 cleanup.) 1.04 6" Tapping Tee (includes installation and 1 EA $320.00 $320 cleanup.) 1.05 DI Fittings (includes installation and 1 TN $4,200.00 $4,200 cleanup.) 1.06 Fire Hydrant Assembly (includes 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000 installation and cleanup.) 1.07 3/4" Air Release Valve Assembly 1 EA $1,000.00 $1,000 (includes installation and cleanup.) Subtotal Item 1 - Water: $43,570 2.00 SEWER 2.01 6"o SDR 26 PVC ASTM D3034 Sewer 1,838 LF $8.50 $15,623 Line (includes installation, testing, and cleanup.) 2.02 6"o SDR 26 PVC ASTM D2241 Sewer 36 LF $11.25 $405 Line (includes installation, testing, and cleanup.) 2.03 5' - 8' Trenching & Backfill - Non- 1,153 LF $10.00 $11,530 Structural (includes backfill and cleanup) 2.04 5' - 8' Trenching & Backfill - Structural 600 LF $18.00 $10,800 (includes backfill and cleanup) University Preserve Estimate - Page 1 of 2 Item Description Estimated Estimated ESTIMATED No. Quantity Unit Cost TOTAL COSTS 2.05 8' - 10' Trenching & Backfill - Non- 121 LF $18.00 $2,178 Structural (includes backfill and cleanup) 2.06 Sewer Services (Near & Far) 23 EA $1,000.00 $23,000 2.07 Trench Safety 2.08 4' Standard Manhole (0 - 6' Deep) (includes installation, testing, and cleanup.) 2.09 Manhole Drop Structure 2.10 Cleanouts 1,874 LF $1.00 $1,874 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000 1 EA $700.00 $700 3 EA $300.00 $900 Subtotal Item 2 - Sewer: $79,010 Subtotal Construction Cost: $122,580 TOTAL PROJECT COST: $122,680 E OF TE 4,1 ~ ~ cam ~ . Prepared by: *r J. Dale Browne Jr., P.E. ! DALE BROWNE, JR. Ash & Browne Engineering, Inc. ~j•••••••••""'"""""' , t.A.:._ 81890 _ University Preserve Estimate - Page 2 of 2 MOLT VFW T '7 1 1 ! • ' t~.~° tao,o' a t~.~d' ~ a~.o' I t~.tY t40~+Y ~ b ! ra ~ ~ ! j - I~ ~ I r r y ! ~ , r 1 L } ~ I ~ e,x a I i ! ~ f a i I ~ 1 9~ I ~ ~ 1 t C►0 4Y 10 0' D3 S 100 ' did 3' ) 2nV i 944,E NX tfi4.3' I r I r ~ w ~!5!si4tilK (yk~~t - . 1, TOTAL HUMBER OF LOO 41 2, TOTAL *DTH OF ALL LOM 4,624.E 3, AVERA LOT VADTH 112.8 a pAk pRpWTtt , ,s... k., ar "a"" i ego AVERAGE LOT WIDTHS AWITHIN ON BLOCK OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT UNIVERSE PRESERVE ESTATES SUBDIMI 1 1` E 200' 042001-013-01 , uw. DEED Z 5 8 1112 TIM AM ZSU= EeT M A=710U To TZ CITr Cr QOM Or T8; CCLL10Z BTATICK, BRA208 Comm, mcm am OF CCLUM 8=0K sled TO Recorded in volume __0 Page TM PM= Bras" County Decd Records tittggt..tttMN• DocLw E8TAm. ODLLSOB Swum, NUMDO GaWff, TEAS ~ ♦igtgttitqqtti TER BUTS Cy T=" j VM ALL W BT THM PR=Mt That we, the undersigned. the owners of a majority of the lots or estate in Ooodlend Estates Audition to the City of College Station hereby Invoke the provisions of PAMRAPS lQlol: (9) of the deed restrictions which state. "These oovmsats are to run with the land and shall be binding on all the pertles and all persons olaining under Use until September 23rd, 1966; at which time said oonvanontsrhh011 be automatically extended for sucoessive periods of Ten (10) years unless by o vote at the majority o" rha owners of lots It is agreed to change the sold oonvenants In whole or in part." (Original restrictions recorded in the records of Bras" County in volume 108. Pop 217, by the Colleges Sills Company. Therefore, we, the owners of a majority of the lots or estates in Woodland Zststes Addition agree to replace the original restrictloae Imposed by the Collage Sills Company with the restriotlons a "S forth in this instrument in order to reflect the choosing times and to Garry out -v andfom and harmonious development of lead surplus to wdeting hoses and structures. It is further ogled that each signature as and to this Instrument represents a Tots JZ the restrictions as a" forth herein. a18_TflI 17..1 14 LAID WX ACID ==1W TVit No lot shall be used for any purpose euroept for residential purposes. No b"Uing shall be created, elterad, placed Of parsitt" to reads as any lot other than one detached single famlly lwe"I not is G=eed tmo stories Is height and a private garage or Carport RESTRICTED MICROFILM COPY 00 NOT DUPLICATE COPYR IGMT 1982 SOUTHERN MICROFILM OF TEXAS INC. N1 J wP---- - Ptof ILK 1.'.7 y 1 _ _ , .r_ or other structure which supplements the residence, and use of which is compatible to the residence, such as fences, wells, pools, terraces, and similar landscaping features/ All structures or parts of structures that compose a residence jball be of new construattoo, vith no less j than 60 per cent stow or brick exterior, and be in harmony with existing residences mad be approved by the Architectural Control Committee. No residence shall be constructed on a lot having less than one hundred (100) feet of frontage on a primary street and one hundred and thirty (130) feet in depth. It is the intent of these restrictions that the above dimensions of lots shall prevail on all { lots on which residences are constructed. In instancas where the 1 public interest can better be served with minor modifications, the Architectural Committee may approve such minor 2hanges if in its judgment such changes would be desirable in maintaining harmony in the development. On curved streets in no instance will the frontage on a primary street be less than 50 feet measured on the chord. 2. DWELLING SIZE The ground floor isaa of the main residential structure, exclusive of open porches, screened porches, stoops, overhangs and Wages shall be not less than 1600 square feet of space. 3. ARCMTECNRAL CotMOL No building shall be erected or altered on any lot until the construction plans, specifications, and location of the structure have been approved by the Architectural Control Committee. No fence or well shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot nearer to any street than the minimum building act back line unless approved by the Architectural Control Committee. This Committee shall be composed of three owner-residents of Woodland Estates Addition duly elected by a majority of the aware of lots voting in a called election upon or after September 230 1966, A majority of the Committee may hold an election for replacement of committee members at their discretion. A majority of the committee members may designate a representative to act for it. In the treat of the death or resignation of any member of the committee, the remaining members shall have full authority to designate a successor. Neither the members of the committee nor its designated representative shall be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this cowaant. MW committees approval me iiaspprewl u rmgmi>fa~ A6a11 be in waiting. Ttii 1 I1.j w DEED Z 5 8 If the committee fails to give vritten approval or disapproval within fourteen (14) days after plans and specifications have bees submitted to it, or in any event, if no suit to enjoin the completion of the structure has not been undertaken, then approval shall not be required. 4. EOILDINO LOCATION No building shall be located on any lot nearer to the front line or nearer to the side street than the minimlas building setback line show on the recorded plats. Where plate or setback lines have not been established, the a1lnimum location on aay lot to the front line shall be thirty (30) feet and to a side street (20) feet, No building shall be located nearer than ten (10) feet to any interior lot line except garages approved by the Architectural Control Committee. For purposes of this covenant, porches, steps, and attached Scrages hall be considered as part of the building. Dwellings on corner lots shall have presentatable frontage on all streets. The Architectural Committee shall designate the direction in which isprovsmente shall face except that all residences on lots Seven (7) and Eight (S) shall face Francis Drive. 99' Wr:LC1CES No noxious or offensive activity shall be permitted nor shall any trade, annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood be permitted. The Architectural Control Committee may declare such to be a nuisance to the neighborhood. 6. Taoft y STRUCTURES No structure of a temporary character shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence either temporarily or permanently. 7 SIGNS No signs of any kind shall be displayed on any lot except one sign of not more than five (5) square feet advertising the property for sale or rent, or signs used by a builder to advertise the property during the construction and sales period. S. OIL AND MINUO OPERATIONS go oil drilling, development. refining, quarriag or mineral operations of any kind shall be permitted. Derricks or otber structures for use in boring or puelpi.ug oil shall not be permittad oo any lot. 77 -M NC~1Nill MICROFIL COVr 00 NOT fNlpl ICAT CVe'.IVM 1982 SOOT ME RN MICROFIIJ OF TEXAS INC. tip' r ~ur~Kioni 19 12 SOVTMERM a~ MICROFILM { 1 Of TEXAS t ' J 90 LrVWTOCK An POULTRY " ' / ' J ' No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shell be raised, bred or kept on any lot smaller than five (9) acres, except that dogs, oats, end other household pets mcy be kept provided thet they are not kept, bred, or maintrl ned for any commercial purpose. 10. TERLI OF Cumin dm These oovenente are to run with the load end shell be binding on all parties end all persona cleiming under them for c period of ten (10) years from September 23, 1966, after which time the said covenants shall be rutometically extended for successive periods of ten (10) yerro, unless on instrument signed by a majority it of the then ormora of record of the lots has been recorded, agreeing to change acid covenrnts in whole or in part. 11. M7MRCEL 2.1T Enforcement shall be by proceedings at law or in equity which action mry be brought by any or,ner of lend in the subdivision or by the lrehitacturol Control C=U ttee or its representative ( against any persona or person attempting to violate any covenant either to restrrin violation or to recover dr.moges. 12. SLY-WILITY i Invalidation of any one of these aoveacnts by judgment or court order or practice shall in no nay affect any of the other proviciona which ahrll retain in full force and effect. Signed by a majority of the owners of lots voting for the amended restrictions as set forth herein: COE I Iri