Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemoa- March 18, 2003 MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor Ron Silvia Mayor Pro Tern James Massey Council Member James Happ Council Member Winnie Garner Council Member Scott Mears Council Member Dennis Maloney Council Member Anne Hazen City Manager Tom Brymer ^. ? 2:) 3 We the elected Board of the Nantucket Preservation Association (homeowners association) take this opportunity to express concerns about certain aspects of the proposed South College Station Thoroughfare Plan which we believe to be counter to Council policies directed to preserving the integrity of existing neighborhoods. We represent the approximately 225 landowners and homeowners in Nantucket. We recently discussed these issues at a property owners meeting and those in attendance were unanimous in their opposition to several proposals in the Plan. We have a relatively mature community with few remaining lots left for construction and a strong mutual sense of community. We have several community functions each year. Many of the residents walk or jog on the relatively narrow roads (mostly 60 ft. rights of way). Children play and ride their bikes in and along the roads. In the Plan, we see the heart of our community being pierced by a collector road that will encourage traffic flow from outside our community to flow both ways through our neighborhood, causing the minor collector to become a major thoroughfare. We have met with College Station city staff and two members of P &Z and expressed our concerns unambiguously, but to little or no avail. We need your help to preserve the integrity of our community. We want you to discourage outside traffic from cutting through our narrow and winding roads rather than encouraging it. All around us are undeveloped tracts with opportunities to plan for appropriate development without destroying the character and integrity of Nantucket. Yes, we know that development is sure to occur in our area for many of the same reasons that drew us to build our homes here, however we also hope to work with you to preserve as much of the amenities as possible that make this area one of the most desirable in the county. We recommend: 1. That the Arrington road upgrade to a minor arterial be a top priority and completed as soon as possible. 03-2Z 2. That the planned major collector that extends from the race track interchange to Arrington road should also be a top priority for near term completion. 3. That the planned minor collector currently shown in the Margraves/Windham development area that connects with Arrington at the Harpers Ferry- Arrington intersection, be replaced with two such roads at least a mile apart and about 0.5 mile on either side of the Harpers Ferry- Arrington Road intersection. This will help discourage traffic from passing through Nantucket. 4. That the primary collector shown on the east side of State Highway 6 and intersecting at Nantucket Drive be moved approximately 0.5 to 0.75 miles south. This would help discourage any future construction of an overpass at Nantucket which once again %' Ibuld funnel major traffic through our neighborhood. We hope that you give thoughtful consideration of our recommendations and we request a written response. Please direct your response to B. L. Harris, President of NPA, 1207 Mariners Cove, College Station, TX 77845. Let us know if we may provide further inputs. Sincerely, B. L. Harris, President �F' /'� Penny Holmes, Vice- President Karen Weir, Member Ward Wells ember 3 I19) 03 1" : d p� &Vyn D3 -a�\ March 20, 2003 MEMORANDUM To: College Station Planning & Zoning Commission We the elected Board of the Nantucket Preservation Association (homeowners association) take this opportunity to express concerns about certain aspects of the proposed South College Station Thoroughfare Plan which we believe to be counter to Council policies directed to preserving the integrity of existing neighborhoods. We represent the approximately 225 landowners and homeowners in Nantucket. We recently discussed these issues at a property owners meeting and those in attendance were unanimous in their opposition to several proposals in the Plan. We have a relatively mature community with few remaining lots left for construction and a strong mutual sense of community. We have several community functions each year. Many of the residents walk or jog on the relatively narrow roads (mostly 60 ft. rights of way). Children play and ride their bikes in and along the roads. In the Plan, we see the heart of our community being pierced by a collector road that will encourage traffic flow from outside our community to flow both ways through our neighborhood, causing the minor collector to become a major thoroughfare. Previous discussions with College Station city staff and two members of the Planning & Zoning Commission have not been fully successful. We need the Commission's help to preserve the integrity of our community. We want you to discourage outside traffic from cutting through our narrow and winding roads rather than encouraging it. All around us are undeveloped tracts with opportunities to plan for appropriate development without destroying the character and integrity of Nantucket. Yes, we know that development is sure to occur in our area for many of the same reasons that drew us to build our homes here, however we also hope to work with you to preserve as much of the amenities as possible that make this area one of the most desirable in the county. We recommend: 1. That the Arrington road upgrade to a minor arterial be a top priority and completed as soon as possible. 2. That the planned major collector that extends from the race track interchange to Arrington road should also be a top priority for near term completion. 3. That the planned minor collector currently shown in the Margraves/Windham development area that connects with Arrington at the Harpers Ferry- Arrington intersection, be replaced with two such roads at least a mile apart and about 0.5 mile on either side of the Harpers Ferry- Arrington Road intersection. This will help discourage traffic from passing through Nantucket. 4. That the primary collector shown on the east side of State Highway 6 and intersecting at Nantucket Drive be moved approximately 0.5 to 0.75 miles south. This would help discourage any future construction of an overpass at Nantucket which once again would funnel major traffic through our neighborhood. We hope that you give thoughtful consideration of our recommendations and we request a written response. Please direct your response to B. L. Harris, President of NPA, 1207 Mariners Cove, College Station, TX 77845. Let us know if we may provide further inputs. Sincerely, B. L. Harris, President Gerald Atmar, Secretary Pe y HHo1me V ce- President Karen Weir, Member \v ')�� Ward Wells, ember Memo To: College Station Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council From: Diane L. Oswald and Family Date: March 20, 2003 Re: South College Station Thoroughfare Plan I want to thank you for hosting the public meetings to discuss the draft of the proposed roadway changes. While we appreciate the difficulty of your task, we are encouraged by your commitment to take the position of current residents into consideration as you plan for future growth. The residents of Woodlake are, as you can probably tell, united in our commitment to preserve our rural lifestyle including the owning of horses and other farm animals, the abundance of wildlife, and the peace and quiet that we have worked so hard to afford. We understand that our neighborhood may some day be annexed into the city - although most of us wouldn't like to see that happen in our lifetimes. Regardless of the growth around us, the one thing that we hope and expect to maintain is the peace, quite, and security that Woodlake provides as a non - through street community. Our kids can ride their bikes to their friend's houses and we have an annual hayride for trick -or- treating. Throughout the year deer, roadrunners, armadillo, raccoons and other wildlife can be seen and on any given evening you can find families walking through the neighborhood. If any road in Woodlake becomes a through street, then riding bikes, walking dogs, and horseback riding on our "country roads" - which are activities cherished by Woodlake residents - will become an endangered way of life. With additional non - resident traffic we could expect to see an increase in litter, crime, and traffic accidents - resulting in a significant decrease in our quality of life. We don't want increased access, we don't mind being an island in the midst of tremendous growth, and we do not want to become a driveway for some developer's new sub - division. Please keep these concerns in mind and consider other options for managing the sprawl of South College Station. T nk you, � ro A _ <; - 02 Diane L. Oswald Woodlake Resident TO: Planning and Zoning Committee CS City Staff FROM: Homeowners in the Southside Neighborhood We want to thank you for the opportunity to be heard at this public hearing. We understand as citizens of this great city that it is our responsibility to react to the proposed rezoning of 1311 S.W. Parkway in a way deemed appropriate by our elected and appointed representatives. We are not here in opposition to any development on this tract. In fact most of us would like to see the land developed in accordance with the UDO and the Comprehensive Plan. As fellow citizens we ask that you consider a few reasons for our opposition to the rezoning application. We would like it be noted that we are submitting several referenced items to the Committee. This includes over 70 signed statements representing over 60 homes around the tract in question, in opposition to the proposed rezoning. Attachments: Item #1: Preliminary Plat Plan Submitted by CRB Associates and Kling Engineering Item #2: Staff Report Item #3: Application for Rezoning submitted by CRB Associates. Item #4: Copy of signed statements of surrounding neighborhoods. Originals are available. Opposition Reason #1 R -IA has minimum lots sizes of 4000 square feet. This is often used to create odd shaped lots but in this case the desire is create more lots or higher density to overcome bad research and economics. CRB's preliminary plat plan consists of 20+ lots of 40X100 or 4000 square feet, please refer to Item #1. It has been stated in the application of the desire to have 40' width to make it economical. Please refer to the CRB rezoning application or Item #3 If rezoning were to take place and this plan were to be adopted these lot sizes would be almost 60% SMALLER than that of the surrounding home sites and most of the Southside R -1 residences. R -IA and Proposed Plat reflect lots sizes of — 4000 sq. feet. The surrounding homes are on average 9,600 sq feet. According to the Comprehensive Plan and Development guideline we offer the following: College Station Development Guide 2.03 - Objective 2.2 states "College Station should develop standards that promote a reduction of land use intensity as development approaches established and future residential areas." College Station Development Guide 2.03 - Objective 3.1 states "College Station should continue to protect the integrity of residential areas by minimizing intrusive and incompatible land uses and densities." College Station Development Guide 2.03 - Objective 5.4 states, "College Station may consider new land uses and development patterns that were not anticipated, provided these new land uses and development patterns are compatible with the environment and any surrounding development." CRB's zone change desires are in direct conflict with the above - published goals. CRB Associates was asked in the application to indicate whether or not this zone change is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Obviously it is not. In addition, the proposed development or most R- I A developments for this tract would require homes to be much smaller than those surrounding the property. With a 7.5 feet setback (distance from house to property line) on each side, the "houses" can only be 25 feet wide. With 25 feet setbacks at the front and back of the property, the houses can be no more than 50 feet long (or deep), for a maximum footprint for the house of 1250 sq. ft., with no garage. This type development or any other R -lA development on this tract would be intrusive, compromise the integrity of the area, and be incompatible with the environment and surrounding development. We ask that the covenant the city has with the current homeowner be honored and a recommendation of denial be submitted to the City Council. Opposition Reason #2 Before we begin our reaction and response to the staff planner's recommendation of approval we would like to point out that at no time were the surrounding homeowners contacted for opinions, thoughts, or reactions to the proposed zone change. The public hearing letter was - - - - - - -- cur- first- notice- -- Unfortunately, this notice came -right -before Spring Break thus it has -been difficult to gather information or to inform. In addition, it should be noted that no explanation has been offered in what exactly this rezoning means. It has been up to average, untrained citizens to dig for information and to inform fellow neighbors of the potential impact of such a rezoning and subsequent development. A duty many of us were willing to take but few had time to do. It should be noted that all the City staff have been very pleasant to deal with in our requests for information. The CS StaffPlanner(s) in Item #2 are recommending this change based on the following statements: 1) Under Item Summary of the Staff Report: " The owner /developer has contacted a number of the adjacent homeowners and stated that he has only received positive feedback" Our response: We refute this statement in its entirety. We have found no such person and his contact with us was for information purposes only. Again we submit that no City staff confirmed this statement with any present here. I think the number of signatures received in opposition proves this point. 2) Under Item Summary of the Staff Report: The undeveloped land necessitates R -lA zoning to make the development economically feasible. Our response to this: Why should the homeowners in the area be subject to non- conforming zoning and development because the undeveloped land is unusual? If 20 homes could be built on the property surely less could be built that is in compliance with Comprehensive Plan and UDO. Economic feasibility is the landowner's issue, why make it ours. 3) It was stated to us on the phone by Molly Hitchcock (who by the way was very accommodating to our requests for information) that the "The level of impact is minimal to Glade and Laura Lane residents in regards to traffic." Our response to this: The level of impact on an artery is often minimal but this is not a reason to make the land non - conforming. The level of impact at this particular location gives reason to create low - density housing not high. The 3 -way interchange of Glade, S.W. Parkway, and Southwood is an already dangerous and confusing area. In addition, this is at the edge of an elementary school zone, thus having a potentially negative effect on traffic patterns for parents, children, and school buses. 4) The Comprehensive Plan Consideration as stated on the Staff Report allows for medium density housing but with the public street requirement necessitates R -lA density. Our Response to this: This area is developed on the low end of medium density. The houses adjoining the property are on avg. 4.5 dwellings per acre With the proposed - - pub is srreet - deve - topmeiit - or ariy IOTA development becomes closer - to high -- - - - density on the remaining land used for platting. 10 -12 dwellings per acre is more accurate. This will not blend in well with the surrounding neighborhoods and be more reflective of multi - family developments. We understand that zoning considers the "net" density versus the "gross ", but in either case it doesn't blend at all. Opposition Reason #3 CRB's answers in the application for rezoning seem insufficient to deem a change that is necessary or required. In one case their statements are totally inaccurate or false. "1) List the changed or changing conditions in the area or in the City which make this zone change necessary." CRB Associates answer: "This is a 3.03 acre tract which is currently vacant and completely surrounded by R -1 development. This is an in -field development and its configuration will not allow for R -1 development. This tract will support the development cost with 40' lot width but not a 50' lot width." planner to consider what type of housing CRB has developed in town previously. If I'm not mistaken it is multi - family. Opposition Reason #5 The new UDO the City Council adopted last week has no provision for R- I A zoning. UDO Specifications Article 5.2 diagrams that R -1 has minimum lots sizes of 5000 square feet and minimum 50' width and 100' depth for each lot. It is understood that this request may be "grandfathered ". However, since this application would HAVE to be rejected under the new plan we ask the Planning and Zoning Committee to consider application under the adopted plan now. There is no apparent compelling and necessary reason to make a "grandfathering" decision in this case, especially since we know the UDO will be effective in 83 days. Taken from Article I of the UDO: "The UDO Scope and Purpose includes: A. Promote the beneficial, economic and appropriate development of all land and the most desirable use of land in accordance with a well - considered plan; - - - -- - - - - - - - B: - - - ProfecTthe cl�arac�e� and he a ablished ppa­ffem - of des developme'nUih ead area; C. Prevent or minimize land -use incompatibilities and conflicts among different land uses; D. Establish a process that effectively and fairly applies the regulations and standards of this UDO and respects the rights of property owners and the interests of citizens; and E. Implements the Comprehensive Plan through compliance with its individual elements." We want the character and established pattern of our neighborhood to be followed in any new development. This being the case, we implore the P&Z Committee to vote against this application and submit a denial recommendation to the City Council. The amount of time the City staff and the taxpayer's money has been spent in developing this plan should give reason to start applying this on any new developments proposed in the city. Opposition Reason #5 Under Transitional Provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance or UDO there is no provision for R- IA. UDO Section 1.10B- Zoning Districts: Retained Districts The following zoning districts and district names in effect prior to the effective date of this UDO and represented on the official zoning map of the City of College Station shall remain in effect. Those districts are shown on the following table: District Name A-0 A ricultural -O en A -OR Rural Residential Subdivision A -P Administrative Professional R -iB Single-Family Residential R -1 Single-Family Residential R -2 Duplex Residential R -3 Townhouse R -7 Manufactured Home Park C -1 General Commercial C -2 Commercial- Industrial M -2 Heavy Industrial WPC Wolf Pen Creek Dev. Corridor R &D Research & Development NG -1 Historic North ate NG -2 Commercial North ate NG -3 Residential North ate C -U College and Universi PDD Planned Development OV Corridor Overla By omission of R -1 A it is established that no transitional provision remains effective. UDO Section 1.10 B -5: Henceforth all areas designated R -1A shall be redesignated R -1, Single - Family Residential. i District 1t•I 9= uu! VA_ JE.7inauir• Redesig- Nated Name District Single-Family Residential Our desire here is to only point out that there seems to be no transitional provision for R- IA. In effect the adoption of the UDO immediately negates this designation entirely in both sections referenced above. Maybe further explanation to the public and our neighborhood is necessary. However, if our point is valid we ask the committee to dismiss this application and recommend denial to the City Council. We don't mind employing a technicality to prevent this change. Conclusion: In conclusion we wish to again express our appreciation in hearing our common "voice ". We understand the challenges you face, as our peers, in interpreting these requests, recommendations, and responses. We hope that our faith in the process and system established by our elected officials will be enacted upon tonight. We feel that both the UDO and Comprehensive Plan back up our desire to maintain R -1 zoning for this tract. We ask that you honor the covenant between our city officials and current homeowners, some who have lived here 40+ years, and submit a denial recommendation to the City Council.