HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc.CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name: Crux Financial Service Inc.
Street Address: 2706 Pinehurst
City: Bryan State: Texas
Phone Number: 979 -545 -6248
E -Mail: switzerdeason@msn.com
Zip Code: 77802
Fax: 979- 774 -1156
Name: Charles Pinnell
E -Mail:
Street Address: 1013 Lyceum Court
City: College Station State: Texas Zip Code: 77840
Phone Number: 979 - 693 -2895 Fax:
BROADCAST REPORT
TIME
04/29/2003 16:28
NAME
COCS DEVELOPMENT SER
FAX
9797643496
TEL
9797643570
SER.#
BROE2J341073
PAGE (S) 02
DATE
TIME
FAX NO. /NAME
DURATION
PAGE {S}
RESULT
COMMENT
04/29
04/29
16:26
16:27
97741156
98468914
01:05
40
02
02
OK
OK
ECM
ECM
BUSY: BUSY /NO RESPONSE
NG POOR LINE CONDITION
CV COVERPAGE
PC PC -FAX
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
TIME
05/1312003 14:15
NAME
COCS DEVELOPMENT SER
FAX
9797643496
TEL
9797643570
SER.#
BROE2J341073
DATE,TIME
05/13 14:15
FAX N0. /NAME
97741156
DURATION
00:00:34
PAGE(S)
01
RESULT
OK
MODE
STANDARD
ECM
MAY 13 2003 �
Memorandum
May 8. 2003
TO College Station Planning and Zoning Commission McWt+ers:
Richard Floyd, Chairman
Wallace McMath Phil Trapani
Carolyn Williams Scott Shafer
Craig l•T:01 Ben Whit:
FROM: Albert and Annette Casey, 1205;B
Munson Avenue, College Station.
SUBJECT: Switzer Deacon's latest replat application for University Preserves
At the March, 2002 meeting of the Commission , the assistant city attorney told the members their authority was
limited to approving Mr. Deacon's application since it complied with relevant ofdirmces -- "a done deal." I was
embarrassed to find those of us voicing concerns were participating only in a therapy. session. Please let this tirae be
different.
Mr. Deacon claims financial hardship - -- -his marketing efforts have not worked. Should his commitments be
honored that were made in accordance with the permission granted to him for the first replat? Should the universal
rules for .risk taking in business ventures be amended for this case? Are people seeking smdll lots lifllitW iu flitch
search to the Munson neighborhood?
Mr. Deason makes comparisons to the Grand Oaks development. The driveway (our driveway for 38 years) exiting
onto Munson from University Preserves reveals a typical neighborhood scene. Exiting Grand Oaks one sees to the
let tht tail end of a long row of small student houses, and to the right, a hotel.
Please obtain factual data concerning the impact of the proposed increase in population density on traffic and safety.
T-L._ i......, -- -6- is:117A!l7'Y', ..—I.. i— e„nA Agra aair ar 11M rn rhP flrcr ra lat i c1himil4 rmmmal
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
2,-
TIME 05/12/2003 13:42
NAME COCS DEVELOPMENT SER
FAX 9797643496
TEL 9797643570
SER.# BROE2J341073
DATE,TIME
05112 13:36
FAX NO./NAME
98468914
DURATION
00:06:22
PAGE(S)
22
RESULT
OK
MODE
STANDARD
ECM
CITY OF COUEGE STATION
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
x.101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960
Collcgc Station, Texas 77542
Phone (979)764 -3570 / Fax (979)764 -3496
,o. Pf
b4� -k9i�
PROM; Susan IIazlett, Staff Assistant
DATE: May 12, 2003
1E: Staff Report
P &Z Meeting
Following this coversheet is a copy of the Staff Report that was prepared for the following
project. Please keep in mind that staffs responsibility is to provide the Planning & Zoning
Commi with all pertinent facts of a development case, but that staff is not acting as an
advocate for the applicants, Therefore, it is in the applicant's best interest to send a
renrn- entative to the. Planning &. 7nnino r..nn,tni.-Wc-Pn mr`rtinw to enralr nn 1,P1,A1f of tl-in
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
0-3 q-5
TIME
05/12/2003 14:02
NAME
COCS DEVELOPMENT SER
FAX
9797643496
TEL
9797643570
SER.#
BROE2J341073
DATE,TIME
05112 14:00
FAX NO./NAME
97741156
DURATION
00:01:31
PAGES?
04
RESULT
OK
MODE
STANDARD
ECM
TO: College Station Planning and Zoning Members 516/Q3
Ricbard L. Floyd
Wallis McMath
Phil Triipxui
Carolyn Williams
SCOU Slialcr
Craig Hall
Ben White,
Wc, the undcrsigned, wish to express our o ppn.sit.inn to the request for re- platting the University
Frescrvc Gated Community as proposed by Swit7br Deason.
The integrity of our neighborhood ic; vital to all residents in this area and the reduction of lot sizes
from the original Flat will be detrimental to nur neighborhood. City ordinance 1$ -13 clearly, and correctly,
prohibits this request:
Addr cr
N 14 ' V-s o' v
all
i~
Natalie Ruiz - Expert Witness Opinion Crux Financial Services.doc Page 1
A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
OF THE MERIT OF PURSUING A FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINT
REGARDING THE ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO:
CRUX FINANCIAL SERVICES, et al.,
VS.
THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
CASE NO.: NOT FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SUBMITTED TO:
SWITZER L. DEASON
CRUX FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.
UNIVERSITY PRESERVE
2706 PINEHURST
BRYAN, TEXAS 77802
April 7, 2003
PREPARED BY:
DR. GARY LACEFIELD
LACEFIELD & ASSOCIATES
900 MONROE STREET, SUITE 304
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102
TELEPHONE (817) 882 -9208
Natalie Ruiz - Expert Witness Opinion Crux Financial Services.doc
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REPORT REQUEST
This report was prepared at the request of Switzer L. Deason; principle for Cruz Financial
Services Inc. - University Preserve (Crux) located at 2706 Pinehurst, Bryan, Texas 77802 to
review the merit of pursuing a Fair Housing Complaint regarding the allegations as stated in
your phone conversation to me on March 30, 2003. ' The issues, as I understand them, involve
the subject property, which is located in its entirety within the jurisdiction of the city of College
Station (City). The question arises whether or not actions by the City regarding the
implementation and enforcement of specific zoning ordinances could be perceived by the United
Stated Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and/or the Department of Justice
(DOJ) as violations of the Fair Housing Act, as amended in 1988, or any other civil rights related
laws.
OUALIFICATIONS (Exhibit A)
I am currently the principle and primary consultant for Lacefield and Associates a consulting
company that specializes in fair lending and fair housing related issues including reviewing and
analyzing corporate policies and procedures for compliance with state and federal guidelines. I
have reviewed and developed improvements in the quality control systems and implemented
changes in policy and procedure regarding compliance and customer service related issues for
several top twenty lenders.
From April of 1999 through May of 2002, I was the Senior Vice President for Fair Lending and
Business Developed for CTX Mortgage, a division of Centex, a Fortune 300 company. During
this time I was responsible for ensuring compliance with the Fair Lending activities of two
hundred and fifty-six branch and satellite offices in forty-two states. I also provided consultation
to Centex Home Equity, their subprime counterpart.
' It should be noted that this report is based solely upon my opinions as an expert in this field and should not be
considered a legal opinion or rendering legal advice.
Page 2
2
Natalie Ruiz - Expert Witness Opinion Crux Financial Services.doc
The previous nine years I served with the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) as an Investigator, a Supervisor of Lending Investigations, and Senior Civil
Rights Analyst. I was directly responsible for the investigation, negotiation, and drafting of the
twelve largest civil rights cases in HUD history. These cases involved settlements that provided
over $10 billion in relief for complainants and assurances that discrimination would not happen
against future borrowers. I trained lending investigators representing the Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS), Office of Comptroller of Currency (OCC), and the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) for fair lending and predatory lending issues and methods. I reviewed
and analyzed over six thousand matched pair lending tests, which directly resulted in one hundred
thirty six lending settlements. Additionally, I negotiated twenty-four settlements that totaled over $8
million in relief for complainants. My responsibilities included the direct supervision and review of
the casework of all fair housing investigators for the Southwest Area, and developing training
materials and conducting training sessions for HUD investigators involved with investigating
insurance redlining and predatory lending issues.
I was designated as the national expert for conciliations in the National HUD Conciliation Training
videos and most recently I was interviewed by the Bush administration as a candidate for Assistant
Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
My formal education includes a Doctorate of Education from Texas A &M University- Commerce,
Commerce, Texas 75429 with a concentration in Supervision, Administration, and Conflict
Resolution. I also hold a Masters of Business Administration degree from Dallas Baptist University
where I graduated at the top of the graduate program.
MATERIALS REVIEWED AND EXAMINED
My opinions in this report are based, in part, on my education, training, and experience in the
housing industry both in the private sector and as a former regulator. In addition, I reviewed
materials furnished to me by Mr. Deason. I have reviewed copies of the following documents:
1. City of College Station Zoning Ordinance No. 1638 as adopted by City Council
March 13, 1986 and Revised thru July 2002.
3
i
i
Page 3
Natalie Ruiz - Expert Witness Opinion Crux Financial Services.doc
Page 4
2. The Preliminary University Preserve Subdivision Munson Access For Tracts A, B, &
C.
3. The Fair Housing Act, as amended, 1988.
4. Executive Order 11063.
5. Title VIII Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Conciliation Handbook. Directive
Number 8024.01
Based upon my review and analysis of the preceding documents, and my knowledge of the
applicable law and facts, it is my opinion that Crux would have standing to file a complaint
under the Federal statutes and the City could be found to be in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Therefore, I believe that actions by the City regarding the implementation and enforcement of
specific zoning ordinances could be perceived by the United Stated Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) and/or the Department of Justice (DOJ) as violations of the Fair
Housing Act, as amended in 1988.
JURISDICTION
Title VIII Complaint Intake, Investigation, and Conciliation Handbook. Directive
Number 8024.01 states the following: JURISDICTION: Determining Standing
Aggrieved Person: The complainant in a Fair Housing complaint initiated outside the
Assistant Secretary's office must be an "aggrieved person." The Act's definition of a
person' includes: "... one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations,
labor organizations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint -stock companies,
trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees in cases under Title 11 of the United States
Code, receivers, and fiduciaries." The term 'aggrieved person' is defined by the Act as:
Any person who -- "(1) claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice;
or (2) believes that such person will be injured by a discriminatory housing practice that
is about to occur."
2. Therefore, Crux has standing to file a complaint as a complainant (plaintiff) under the
Fair Housing Act. Crux is a developer that provides housing opportunities. Actions by
the City may have and will continue to cause the developer harm by its unreasonable and
justifiable statutes and ordinances which limit the number of homes (housing
opportunities) within this particular subdivision.
CASES
The following opinions and observations are based upon issues and cases that I was either
directly involved or have direct knowledge of based upon my experiences with HUD.
2. In Mary Dews v. The Town of Sunnyvale, Texas decided in the Fifth Circuit July 2000,
4
Natalie.Ruiz - Expert Witness Opinion Crux Financial Services.doc
Judge Buchmeyer ruled that the city's one -acre minimum for residential lots and ban on
multi - family development discriminated against minorities, specifically development
planned for African - American households. The ruling stated that the zoning restrictions
created barriers for poor people of other races. Judge Buchmeyer's ruling indicated (i)
that the local government had created an environment that was not conducive to
providing affordable housing options to the protected classes of the city, and (ii) that the
low- density minimum lot size had a discriminatory effect and disparate impact on the
protected classes of the municipality. (Exhibit B) '
3. In Betsey v Turtle Creek Associates, the Fourth Circuit held that a disparate impact is
established when the policy in question has a disproportionate impact on the members of
a protected class in the total group, which the policy was applied.' In 1973, Montgomery
County, Maryland conducted a study, which identified policies by the county government
that contributed to placing barriers on housing opportunities in the county. The study
also recognized that those policies had a discriminatory affect on protected class
members.'
STUDIES
4. In 1998 a survey conducted by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)
among its membership requested information regarding the costs associated with new
home construction.' The results of this survey indicated that 23.6 percent of the cost of a
new home was the finished lot cost, and that 56.2 percent of the lot cost was the cost of
the raw land. Any increase of the amount of land required would significantly impact the
cost and affordability of housing.
5. The Community Development Digest reported that many communities use low- density
laws to control growth.' The study indicated that communities that controlled growth
using this method resulted in African American populations of only 20% compared to
unrestricted areas that had 45% Black populations. This study also showed that in
communities with lower density restrictions, the result in Hispanic families was reduced
'Dews v Sunnyvale, CA 3:88 -CV- 1604 -R. (5` Cir. 2000)
' The attorney for the Plaintiffs is Mike Daniels whom I have worked with in the past.
° Betsey v. Turtle Creek Association, 736 F.2d 983 (4"' Cir. 1984).
' Montgomery County Maryland is one of the nation's most affluent counties. In 1973, to address the problem of
affordable housing, the County Council enacted the Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit ( "MPDU ") Ordinance. The
Council found that a severe housing problem existed within the county with respect to housing for low- and
moderate - income residents. The Council made twelve legislative findings concerning the affordable housing
problem. Among the findings was a statement that public policies, which permit exclusively high -price housing
developments, discriminate against young families, elderly persons, single adults, female heads of households, and
minority households. Such policies produce the undesirable effects of exclusionary zoning. The County Council
made it the public policy of the county to provide a full range of housing choices and for low- and moderate - income
housing.. (- Montgomery County, MD., Code ch. 25A -1 .)
' The Truth About Regulatory Barriers To Housing Affordability was a 1998 study conducted by the NAHB that
asked homebuilders to provide a detailed breakdown of the costs associated with constructing a 2,150 square foot
home.
'Community Development Digest, Washington, May 16, 2000. The American Planning Association using a survey
of 1,168 jurisdictions and 1980 and 1990 Census Bureau data sponsored the study.
Page 5
Natalie-Ruiz - Expert Witness Opinion Crux Financial Services.doc Page 6
from 73% to 45 %. The conclusion a reasonable person could
make based upon this national study is that communities that
control growth by increasing the minimum lot size result in a significantly lower number
of Hispanic and African - American families in that community.
CONCLUSIONS
My conclusions and opinions are based upon a reasonable degree of financial and regulatory
certainty that the City may have violated the Fair Housing Act by and through its interpretation
and implementation of Section 17: Moratorium On Certain Applications by refusing to allow
Crux to re -plat the subject property at the R -1 Single Family Residential rate of 5,000 SF per lot.
The City's reliance of and misinterpretation of the moratorium significantly reduces the number
of homes that would be available for ownership. The City, to my knowledge, has not presented a
quantifiable or qualifiedly justification to maintain their present stance. In addition, the actions
by the City could have an immediate and direct impact on the surrounding neighborhoods by
reducing the availability of other housing to protected class members.
The attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case against Sunnyvale is Mike Daniels. I have
worked with Mr. Daniels on cases similar in nature and believe that Mr. Daniels would consider
taking a case such as this on contingency.
Based upon my review and analysis of the preceding documents, and my knowledge of the
applicable law and facts, it is my opinion that should Crux decide to take action in an attempt to
protect its right to provide housing, that under the Fair Housing Act, Crux has a high likelihood
of prevailing.
Please let me know how you would like to proceed.
Dr. Gary E. Lacefield, CM, MBA, EdD.
900 Monroe Street, Suite 304
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(817) 882 -9208
Date:
0
Attachment
Final Plat Application for University Preserve Subdivision
REQUESTED VARIANCES TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS & REASON FOR SAME
April 21, 2003
Under the guidelines set forth in "SECTION 5: VARIANCES" of College Station's "Subdivision Regulations"
the P & Z Commission is requested to authorize a variance for "partial relief' from "Section 18 -B.2" of
the regulations. Section 18 -B.2 requires that a ". . . lot... 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".
Variance is sought only for the "minimum lot width requirement" of Section 18 -B.2. Variance is not sought
for the "minimum space requirement of 8,500 feet for each lot ", nor from the requirements of the R -1 Zoning
Ordinance.
As discussed below for each of the SECTION 5 requirements that must be satisfied for the Commission to
authorize a variance, the requested variance is not prejudicial to the public interest, it does not create a public
nuisance, and the impact of the variance upon the public health, convenience and welfare of the vicinity is
positive and beneficial.
Section 5: VARIANCES (College Station Subdivision Regulations)
5 -A "Partial" variance from Section 18-B.2 is requested because "undue hardship" results.
Section 18 -B.2 requires all lots in University Preserve Subdivision to have a minimum width of 113 feet,
and this requirement places an "undue hardship" on citizens who want to buy a lot and build a home in the
subdivision. As a result of the 113 feet minimum -lot width requirement, lots in University Preserve range in
size from 0.3 acre to 0.7 acre, thus requiring people to buy larger -than- desired lots they are unable or unwilling
to maintain, and that require the construction of homes costing more than 3.5 times the average appraisal value
of the homes in the surrounding neighborhood.
To comply with the 113 ft. minimum lot width requirement, lot sizes in University Preserve range from 13,000
sq. ft. to 3 0, 000 sq. ft. — 2.6 to 6.0 times larger than the 5,000 sq. ft. required by the R -1 Zoning Ordinance, and
1.5 to 3.5 times larger than the 8,500 sq. ft. required by Section 18 -B.2.
Land and development costs for the 22 marketable lots in the currently approved plat for University Preserve
average $63,600. Lot prices start at $64,500, and average $81,600 for all lots. Based on the 1998 survey
conducted by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), 23.6 percent of the cost of a new home is
the finished lot cost. Using this guideline, the total cost of a new home built on an $81,600 lot should
approximate $350,000 — more than 3.5 times the average appraisal value of the 74 homes surrounding
University Preserve.
The 1/1/03 tax appraisal value of the 74 homes surrounding University Preserve on Munson, Westover and
Dominick is an average $98,301. The 18 homes on Munson between Francis and Dominick have an average
appraisal value of $113,210, the 11 homes on Dominick have an average appraisal value of $102,096, and the
45 homes on Westover have an average appraisal value of $93,926.
5 -A.1 Strict application of the subject regulation deprives the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
The minimum lot width required by the subject regulation prohibits "reasonable" use of the land, because
individuals who want to build a home on a reasonable -size lot are prevented from doing so. The high land and
infrastructure costs required for the large lots necessitated by the minimum width requirement result in: (1)
more costly lots than the lot and home values of the surrounding neighborhood can economically justify, and
(2) result in larger lots than people want to maintain or otherwise can afford. For these reasons, lots have not
sold despite active and intense marketing, thereby depriving the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
5-A.2 Variance is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right.
The originally stated objective of the "Moratorium Ordinance" (which is the predecessor of Section 18 -B.2)
was: (1) to avoid increases in area density that aging infrastructure and facilities were not designed to
accommodate; and (2) to protect areas from incompatible increases in density (presumably by controlling the
neighborhood- eroding practice of subdividing large lots into smaller lots that can impugn the character and
integrity of the affected street and surrounding neighborhood).
More than $800,000 was spent for University Preserve infrastructure to supplement the existing infrastructure
of the area (to the full satisfaction of the City); none of the 35 residential lots for which this Replat Application
is submitted have frontage on an existing street; and the construction of new upscale single - family residences in
the subdivision will enhance the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood of older lower - priced,
sometimes - deteriorating homes.
Having incurred substantial cost and expended considerable effort to comply with the City's regulations, the
applicant is entitled to the preservation and enjoyment of the "substantial property right" therein earned, by not
being unduly prohibited from making the desirable amenities created in University Preserve available to every
person who wants and otherwise can afford a reasonably -sized lot in a subdivision that complies with the R -1
Zoning Ordinance and with the stated objective of the Moratorium Ordinance.
5 -A.3 The variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to other
property in the area, or to the City in administering the chapter.
Like the Grand Oaks Subdivision, University Preserve will be a subdivision that is completely compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood. The "Traffic Impact Assessment" conducted by Joseph Blaschke for the City
found that University Preserve would not create traffic congestion or cause a concern to public health and
safety. Instead of injurious, the upscale homes to be built in University Preserve will substantially enhance the
value and economic incentive to maintain and renovate other property in the area. Allowing this variance will
not create a precedent that would make it difficult for the City to enforce Section 18 -13.2 in the future. There is
little, if any, other land available for development like University Preserve.
5 -A.4 Granting the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land
in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
Only a "partial' variance from 18 -B.2 is requested — variance only from the minimum lot width requirement,
not from the entire section. Section 18 -B.2 also requires that lots "contain at least 8,500 square feet of space "
(compared with the R -1 minimum area requirement of 5,000 square feet). Each lot in University Preserve's
Replat Application more than satisfies the 8,500 sq. ft. minimum area requirement of 18 -13.2. The average size
of the 35 lots is 10,387 sq. ft. —122% larger than the minimum lot size required by 18 -B.2.
Selection of the appropriate "block" by Staff for calculating the minimum lot width requirement was a difficult,
awkward process, mainly because lots in University Preserve do not have frontage on an existing street. As a
result, "the block" used by Staff for the minimum lot -width calculation was the 3.4 million sq. ft. area
boundaried by Munson, Westover, Dominick and Holt, on which none of the lots replatted in University
Preserve have street frontage, and only 11 of the lots on these four streets are located in the subdivision
(Woodland Estates) from which University Preserve lots are platted. University Preserve bears no resemblance
to the neighborhood - eroding practice of replatting lots on a street into smaller lots that can impugn the integrity
and character of the street and surrounding neighborhood.
The 113 feet minimum lot width calculated by Staff is not contested, but it should be recognized that the task of
determining under 18 -B.2 "the average width of the lots along the street frontage, for all lots in the block" (for a
new subdivision with no lots along the frontage of an existing street) was difficult and resulted in an "undue
hardship" inappropriately placed on citizens. Should a similar situation again occur under 18 -B.2 or other
Subdivision Regulation, the Commission may again be asked to consider a variance. Accordingly, the partial -
variance requested is considered a matter of due process in applying the City's Subdivision Regulations and will
not prevent "the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter ".
Submitted By: Switzer Deason, President
Crux Financial Services Inc.
University Preserve Subdivision
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
63-q5
TIME
05/14/2003 09:42
NAME
COCS DEVELOPMENT SER
FAX
9797643496
TEL
9797643570
SER.#
BROE2J341073
DATE,TIME
05/14 09:41
FAX N0. /NAME
977411156
DURATION
00:01:28
PAGE(S)
02
RESULT
OK
MODE
STANDARD
Preserve Replat/Variance equesUniversit ' p �
Spencer Thompson - Universit WL9Wu
��s e�o�:.::..:.:::�::_:::�:_:__.nn ran. .a. ....__._a....__ti.n
From: "Oran Mikeal" a oranm @mikealconrtrurtiongroup.com>
To: <nruiz @ci.college- station.tx.us>
Date: 5113103 6:14PM
Subject: University Preserve Replat/Varianee Request
Ma, Ruiz,
I am responding to the notice sent to property owners adjacent to the
University Preserve Subdivision. After reviewing the request and a copy of
the proposed repeat I would request Ilia[ the City O f Gollegm station
Development Department encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny
the request based on the following reasons:
1. Mr, Deason originally sold the concept of replatting the rear 213rd of
lot ;, awned by Mr. Pinnell Mr , Boa& and Mr I 1pham, by stating that they
would become estate lots, not unlike the surrounding lots in the Woodland
Estates Subdivision, He has marketed these lots as "the last estate lots In
the Heart ur Ayyieland" and a "private gated community of cotate homes
Careful consideration was given last year as to how this new Subdivision
would be platted to comply with governing ordinances regulating the platting
of new subdivisions within existing older subdivisions. The minimum
requirements were established and Mr. Deason accepted those and charged
forward, content with the parameters he had been allowed to work under.
2. Mr. Deason now requests that the parameters he was given should be
relaxed. Apparently the sale of lots has not met his expectations and the
econumics of this project were miowlcuiatcd. Thoea are tho rulers you play
by as a developer. He asked for and was granted the existing plat, put in
the roads and utilities, and has yet to list the property with a Realtor or
with the Multiple Listing Service. The gates are continually lucked and no
one is allowed to casually drive through to view the available lots. It is
not the responsibility of the Woodland Estates property owners to bail out
Mr_ Deason if his development is not as marketable as he had hoped. We
should not have to compromise our properties to appease the developer. Nor
is it tho responeibllity of the City of College Station to give a varianne
in order to make the property more marketable at the expense of the
surrounding properties, If Mr. Deason hit the market wrong, his only
alternative Is to lower thu uusL or the lots, cut his losses, and move on.
3. Mr. Deason stated to the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as City
staff that he was committed to making this development work and that he
would be building his own residence in University Preserve. He has yet to
e
FOR: Floyd, Trapani, Williams, White, Shafer, Hall and McMath.
AGAINST: None.
Commissioner McMath motioned to deny the replat. Commissioner White seconded the
motion. The motion carried 7 -0.
FOR: Floyd, Trapani, Williams, White, Shafer, Hall and McMath.
AGAINST: None.
TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT
Q3 -95
TIME
05/12/2003 12:52
NAME
COCS DEVELOPMENT SER
FAX
9797643496
TEL
9797643570
SER.#
BROE2J341073
DATE,TIME
05112 12:41
FAX NO./NAME
97741156
DURATION
00:10:46
PAGE(S)
22
RESULT
OK
MODE
STANDARD
ECM
Ci'V OF COLLEGE STAMN
DEVELO MENT SERVICES
1101 Texas Avenue South, FO Box 9960
College Station, Texas 7784Z
Phone (979)764 -35701 Fax (979)764
,o.
77'l llSl,
FROM: Susan. Hazlett, Stag Assistant
DATE: May 12, 2003
RJE: Staff Deport
P &Z Meeting
Folio-tAring this coversheet is a copy of the Staff Report that was prepared for the following
project. Please keep in mind that staff's responsibility is to provide the Planning & Zoning
Commission with all pertinent facts of a development case, but that staff is not acting as an
advocate for the applicants. Therefore, it is in. the applicant's best interest to send a
rar►raannt54YVp 4n +hP Pinnninv k Znnina ir.ammiacion meetin¢ to speak an behAT of the